In a real life TTRPG, a character with low skills in everything is probably more fun than some god character with perfect 20s.
Depends on the game. Playing something where a giant portion of game time is taken up by combat (D&D, Pathfinder, Lancer) and being obviously and noticeably worse than every other player just feels bad.
Yeah and it also comes down to your DM and how much of a combat focus they have. Back when I was a GM for shadowrun my players were encouraged to meticulously plan every combat encounter, sometimes so well they didn't have to fight at all. That's always fun.
For sure, I'm running a cyberpunk game right now where they've cleared most missions without getting caught, and every time they've gotten into a firefight has been a disaster ending with someone on death's door. If anything, the combat-oriented solo (who got killed by a lucky headshot) feels underpowered in that game.
I would always push my players to stake out a place before they would infiltrate it in Shadowrun. Hey, maybe they would luck out and find a rotation schedule for the guards?
I think its partly the mismatch, having one person in the party being a power gamer and everyone else kinda waffling about is also bad. If everyone is kinda bad and wonky in a combat heavy game, that can also be fun
Imo one person having a better character is less of a problem, provided they're not too overpowered. If they're really good at their niche, that's not a problem, it's only when they start making other PCs feel obsolete that I've run into issues. I could see everyone being bad being fun but only as a gimmick and not for a lasting campaign (eg Paranoia). D&D combat, though, is already a slog and missing every attack is just going to slow it down and make it even more boring.
Oh lol that's not bad to me, that's just a normal player. I was thinking something like a D&D character that rolled 3d6 down the line for attributes and got nothing above a 10.
I may have overstated a tad, but yeah, normal characters.
In Shadowrun I played with some people who were very build focused (and also their characters had more xp than mine). My character had a party pistol, which was a revolver where each chamber had a different novelty bullet (none of the popular ones). You could choose which round, everyone had a lot of fun even the players who suggested I only use APFSDS and HE rounds. But then when I played shadowrun with other people, my character seemed very focused and power gamey compared to my friends, even though she had a broad range of skills and abilities that were ok in most situations but nowhere near top tier.
idk, context and stuff. Is roleplaying dialectics?
Depends on the game. Playing something where a giant portion of game time is taken up by combat (D&D, Pathfinder, Lancer) and being obviously and noticeably worse than every other player just feels bad.
Yeah and it also comes down to your DM and how much of a combat focus they have. Back when I was a GM for shadowrun my players were encouraged to meticulously plan every combat encounter, sometimes so well they didn't have to fight at all. That's always fun.
For sure, I'm running a cyberpunk game right now where they've cleared most missions without getting caught, and every time they've gotten into a firefight has been a disaster ending with someone on death's door. If anything, the combat-oriented solo (who got killed by a lucky headshot) feels underpowered in that game.
I would always push my players to stake out a place before they would infiltrate it in Shadowrun. Hey, maybe they would luck out and find a rotation schedule for the guards?
I think its partly the mismatch, having one person in the party being a power gamer and everyone else kinda waffling about is also bad. If everyone is kinda bad and wonky in a combat heavy game, that can also be fun
Imo one person having a better character is less of a problem, provided they're not too overpowered. If they're really good at their niche, that's not a problem, it's only when they start making other PCs feel obsolete that I've run into issues. I could see everyone being bad being fun but only as a gimmick and not for a lasting campaign (eg Paranoia). D&D combat, though, is already a slog and missing every attack is just going to slow it down and make it even more boring.
When I say bad I mean like... Not top tier super spec meta build that certain power gamers will complain at you about if you don't build that way
Oh lol that's not bad to me, that's just a normal player. I was thinking something like a D&D character that rolled 3d6 down the line for attributes and got nothing above a 10.
I may have overstated a tad, but yeah, normal characters.
In Shadowrun I played with some people who were very build focused (and also their characters had more xp than mine). My character had a party pistol, which was a revolver where each chamber had a different novelty bullet (none of the popular ones). You could choose which round, everyone had a lot of fun even the players who suggested I only use APFSDS and HE rounds. But then when I played shadowrun with other people, my character seemed very focused and power gamey compared to my friends, even though she had a broad range of skills and abilities that were ok in most situations but nowhere near top tier.
idk, context and stuff. Is roleplaying dialectics?
Base (the rules) reinforces and shapes Superstructure (the players) which in turn reinforces and shapes the Base (houserules)
If you have 20 yards of rules and you want to make one game, how free is everyone on Wednesday night every other week?