>>96174372
>What, to you, makes a PC feel competent and able to do what you want them to do?
At least two of these:
>Having an important niche (combat, sneaking, diplomacy, etc.) where I can succeed effortlessly most of the time (especially when performing trivial tasks), succeed at a cost in critical moments, and still succeed significantly more often than the next best person in the party. If the system has degrees of success/failure, or the option to take skill penalties to add additional benefits to an action, then even better.
>Having a unique ability (e.g., dispelling magic, raising the dead, detecting supernatural evil or danger) that is important for adventuring and that only I can do
>Being able to wipe my own ass without GM permission and do the things that a common person should be able to do.
This last point is very important. Aside from being able to tank ludicrous amounts of punishment, D&D fighters are almost always worse at fighting than most real-life warriors and soldiers. In all the games you've mentioned, I've never once felt actually competent. I've always felt like a retarded idiot savant who can only do one thing well, even at high level.
Narrative game systems aren't any better, because I still feel like a bumbling fucking retard because the GM always fudges the difficulty for the sake of drama, regardless of actual skill.
I've never had this problem with non-narrative non-gamist systems. I could always make a character that felt competent in the areas where they should be competent.

>>11859524
>The scares are jump scares
...so yeah, again, Resident Evil isn't scary at all