by Robin
I have a question that could be adressed to other games and gamers.Some debates about heroes or the overlord being over/underpowered often take the way of putting all the weight of blame upon the game.
Sometimes, doubts are clearly expressed about the quality of playtesting and design to "explain" why the results of the games played are not satisfying.
However, I don't often see anyone having doubts about the players' competence.
Competence in playing the rules correctly.
Competence in playing the mechanics with tactical and strategical insight.
And, finally, balance between the players themselves.
Could an Overlord who complains that the heroes are favoured simply be a less good player than his opponents?
Could heroes complaining that the OL always beats them ask themselves if they are not organizing themselves within the game system as well as their archfeind opponent? That they didn't grasp the quests objectives as well as him?
Can it be reasonable to integrate the player's (in)comptence into the equation, rather than go the easy way, saying that the game system (or playtesting, or quest design) is the only possible suspect ?
Thus many attempts to "fix" the system without any self-criticism, offering house rules and variants as ways to "change the exterior world", rather than consider that they could have to change themselves...
I am not trying to express that the game is perfect or that FFG are infallible.
I am just implying that players can be greater factors of their disappointments than the game itself.