Balbinus had a quote a while back, that many people agreed with. I can't remember the exact one, but it was something like "..the idea of planning a 20-level 'build' with associated feats and prestige classes (etc) fills me with ennui.."

Thats not the exact quote, or anything, but you get the idea.

Many people agreed with this at the time, but I had always seen this as a strength of the 'game' part of of D&D. In my mind, there's the roleplaying part, and there's the game. You need rules for the game, and the players bring the roleplaying (or not). To me, this was a mark of a great game-- that people were actually working out ways of playing it better. The fact that people care enough not only to analyze but to produce these "builds" seems very significant to me for some reason.

Recently I ran across this:

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8765976&an=0&page=0&gonew=1#UNREAD

It's a build guide. Look closely.  Not for D&D, but City of Heroes, an online MMO which involves very specialized tactics and strategies at the individual player level. Every power, every class, works out differently.  The CoH forums are literally filled with build guides, as well as offline tools (for analyzing various builds) and other sites.

Look at the similarities. Obviously lots of dense jargon (I can only translate some of it, even *I* am not that familiar with City of Heroes), but look at the stuff that they are analyzing!


Well, I thought it was interesting anyhow.

Build guides are a standard of MMOs.  Guides for PVE, PVP, Raiding, and so on.  Blizzard has some added functionality on their site where you can spec out your Talent choices for your class and save it.  Always thought that would be a cool feature for WotC to do for the various classes... Skill combos, Feats and so forth.  When I did play 3.x we tried to build towards the Prestige class we were interested in.  An online generator would have been really helpful.

Keith Senkowski

Quote from: KeithBuild guides are a standard of MMOs.  Guides for PVE, PVP, Raiding, and so on.  Blizzard has some added functionality on their site where you can spec out your Talent choices for your class and save it.  Always thought that would be a cool feature for WotC to do for the various classes... Skill combos, Feats and so forth.  When I did play 3.x we tried to build towards the Prestige class we were interested in.  An online generator would have been really helpful.

Keith Senkowski

I usually had one eye on a PrC "of interest" (mainly for flavor purposes) and one eye on some tactic or other- like I had a character that was all based around adding feats and gear that were constantly increasing a threat range so that she would get more critical hits in.

My Xendrik Spellscale Bard for example wants to pick up cloaked dancer, because she's already been kind of established as this 'diva' character (kinda like in Fifth Element), but at the same time, I'm trying to figure out how to capitalize on her tactics that involve flight.

Quote from: Abyssal MawTo me, this was a mark of a great game-- that people were actually working out ways of playing it better.

I really didn't think there was a "better" way to play an RPG.
 

QuoteThe fact that people care enough not only to analyze but to produce these "builds" seems very significant to me for some reason.

Me too. It tells me they are brain damaged.
 
Opps. I must have been channelling Ron Edwards for a moment there.

I have long said that the triumph of 3.x D&D, is that it holds up on it's own as a game, so well in fact that you can essentially play it entirely independently of the roleplaying aspect.  

Very, very few games can say that, and fewer still can say they do it well.  

It is however a common faulty thinking, to see this particular strength of the game and it's enthusiasts, and somehow assume that this is all the game has to offer.  It's a laughable conclusion, which does not bear forth in how the game is actually played.

It's sort of like Gabe's recent experiences with Pokemon and tournament players, as he has detailed it on Penny Arcade.  There are many ways to enjoy the game, from the hardcore, who overanalyze every last statistic with detailed Excel sheets and computer databases, all the way down to the little girl who just likes Pikachu.

There are many ways to enjoy the game, and assuming any one of them is somehow representative of the whole is flatly idiotic.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI really didn't think there was a "better" way to play an RPG.

Well, you'd be wrong on that--especially once you get out of the mindset that says roleplaying games are really 'supposed to be' a form of performance art (but even if that's what you totally believe, there is a skill divide here as well).

In any game, there are clearly such things as skilled players and unskilled players. The degree to which player skill and mastery matters is- I beleive- an important quality when discussing a game as a game.

People like to be good at things.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, you'd be wrong on that--especially once you get out of the mindset that says roleplaying games are really 'supposed to be' a form of performance art (but even if that's what you totally believe, there is a skill divide here as well).

Roleplaying games are 'supposed to be' a form of fun.  If people are having fun, then they are doing it right.

QuoteIn any game, there are clearly such things as skilled players and unskilled players. The degree to which player skill and mastery matters is- I beleive- an important quality when discussing a game as a game.

People like to be good at things.

Are you trying to say that because I'm not interested in optimising a character build I'm an inferior player? :confused:

Quote from: Tyberious FunkRoleplaying games are 'supposed to be' a form of fun.  If people are having fun, then they are doing it right.

A slinky is fun, but it isn't a game. Are roleplaying games really slinkies? There's plenty of ways to have fun, but a game is able to hold the attention in a unique way.

In any case, this is a discussion about games. I think many people in this hobby have gotten to the point where they were so caught up in imagining the supposed-to-be's and the "improvisational radio theatre" fantasy they they eventually fooled themselves about what games actually are.

QuoteAre you trying to say that because I'm not interested in optimising a character build I'm an inferior player? :confused:

I'm not saying your'e an inferior person. But the idea that some players are just better players at any given game shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

Imagine if you will, sitting down at a game where someone is totally new, someone has only played twice, someone has been playing for years, and someone has only read extensively about it, but has a lot of experience with a similar game.

Within moments you can tell who each person is. That's player skill. Now, I'm saying in a really well-designed game, you will see levels of mastery that go way beyond even that.

Case in point:

Levi discovers D&D.

Read his comments further down in the thread.

I think D&D handles it great: You have character classes, that you can just take and be done with it. Like the Cleric.
And then you have those that need and want tinkering, multiclassing and recombination.

Sadly, it´s not spellt out to the uninterested which classes they can take from 1 to 20 vanilla style and still be effective.

There are enough people digging the "deck building"-strategic part in character advancement. There are enough people who don´t have the time anymore, or just don´t care enough outside the actual play. For them there should be a clear statement: "This class is for you. Just add water."

The easiest class for someone who just doesn't care about the build used to be the Fighter. Now that's one of the ones where expertise and player-skill really shines.

At this point, I'd say the simplest one to play is a Sorcerer. Just a simple blaster setup is all you need.

And the class you can play if you don't want to worry about build, but you still want to have a fairly wide range of choices is the Druid.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe easiest class for someone who just doesn't care about the build used to be the Fighter. Now that's one of the ones where expertise and player-skill really shines.

At this point, I'd say the simplest one to play is a Sorcerer. Just a simple blaster setup is all you need.

And the class you can play if you don't want to worry about build, but you still want to have a fairly wide range of choices is the Druid.

Its kinda  shame that this is the case, where some classes really don't have that great build option.  That is the reason I am so high on Iron Heroes.  I love the building elements of it cause, well cause it is like World of Warcraft in that respect.  I love the different tactics that are involved with your characters in WoW and love how that kinda shit was translated into Iron Heroes.

Keith Senkowski

Quote from: KeithIts kinda  shame that this is the case, where some classes really don't have that great build option.  That is the reason I am so high on Iron Heroes.  I love the building elements of it cause, well cause it is like World of Warcraft in that respect.  I love the different tactics that are involved with your characters in WoW and love how that kinda shit was translated into Iron Heroes.

Keith Senkowski

Well, I think your'e wrong about that. All of the standard classes are capable of great builds (including the sorcerer and the druid), but some require less work. Iron Heroes is actually very limited by comparison, and as a result (as you can probably tell) it didn't actually catch on. I'm a huge fan of the Mearl's work, but it seems obvious that Iron Heroes is very specific.


Anyhow, what I'm saying about builds is that the options are open no matter what:

You could set up the sorcerer as a simple blaster.. (which is reliably easy). For a new player this is a good option.

But you can also package them up as summoners or illusionists or mesmerizers or anything else. I had one sorcerer build that was actually optimized for melee (set for going into Dragon Disciple.. with strength buffs, natural armor, altered form.. and minimal spells requiring saving throws, so you don't have to slot too much charisma).

Same with the druid, which is already one of the more "pre-focused" type classes. There's a couple of options: there's a variety of morphers (morph to a lion or bear to brawl.. but sometimes you want to be an elephant, or an eagle..), they happen to be the best straight-up summoners in the game, you can buff the crap out of them and make them into tanks or pet-commanders (focus on buffed pets). Or you can sub them in as healers or elemental-casters.

And for fighters there's all kinds of things you can do: the disarm build, the run and gun archer, the power attacker, the sunder-specialist, the flanker, etc etc.

All of the classes are buildable like this. Some of them are less efficient than others, but the question is.. "at what"? I mention my bard because she's my favorite right now. She's got a 20 charisma, and a feat that allows her to sub that stat in for her will saves. The skills are all opted out for bluff, diplomacy and intimidate.. but when the mod says that "isn't possible", she has a boosted version of Charm Person she can cast without anyone knowing she's casting it. Also, she's got a cover identity of being an opera singer in Stormreach. Why is that cool? If there's an encounter you can possibly get by with saying the right thing or making friends, she can reliably slip the entire group past it. If the mod says you can't (and there are still a few mods like that--I'm thinking of the kinda railroady Covenant of Light mods really) then I guess you can't anyhow.

She's basicly designed to dominate the interaction encounters in RPGA Xendrik modules.  

Tactically she doesn't deal much (or any) damage, really, but on the last Expedition mod I played, the other players appreciated a character that could swift inspire courage (with inspirational boost-- +2 to hits and +2 weapon damage for the group), then go invisible, then tumble behind anyone with a cure wounds wand and keep them standing.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBalbinus had a quote a while back, that many people agreed with. I can't remember the exact one, but it was something like "..the idea of planning a 20-level 'build' with associated feats and prestige classes (etc) fills me with ennui.."

Thats not the exact quote, or anything, but you get the idea.

Many people agreed with this at the time, but I had always seen this as a strength of the 'game' part of of D&D. In my mind, there's the roleplaying part, and there's the game. You need rules for the game, and the players bring the roleplaying (or not). To me, this was a mark of a great game-- that people were actually working out ways of playing it better. The fact that people care enough not only to analyze but to produce these "builds" seems very significant to me for some reason.

Hmmm. I agree and disagree.

On one hand, I think it's a good thing that players can collect together as a community and come up with observations that can help players identify poor choices and give their characters more meaningful ways to contribute to the game.

On the other hand, all too many build guides are built around the philosophy of gaming the system -- identifying weaknesses in the game and building to it, and producing one-note characters that are the "best there is at what they do". When such characters are brought into an actual game, one of four things often occurs:
1) The loophole-seeking character becomes a spotlight hog, to the dissatisfaction of all other players.
2) The DM has a style of play that doesn't let the character play to the shtick, and the player sulks and/or lobbies for his style of gaming.
3) The DM decides that the character build is cheese, and closes a loophole. Similar to #2, this results in sulking.
4) The DM allows the characters, and all players use hyper-optimized builds. But those become the only builds, and creativity goes out the window. Interest characters are replaced by "pat" characters.

These four outcomes fall into the category of "non-fun gaming" to me.

As a side note, while I am not opposed to efficient builds and build advice (as opposed to hyper-optimized ones), I find the idea of 20 level builds that target efficiency at level 20 to be less than useful. Why is simple: when it comes to actual play, unless you are starting at level 20, you aren't spending much of your time there. Sure, it may be nice to have the goal of "having 9th level spells at 20th" (or whatever), but if the character is annoying to play on the path there, it's not too helpful.

I sense that most such "20 level builds optimized for 20th" don't exist, in actuality or intent, to promote enjoyment in the actual game. They exist as a masturbatory exercise by those who make them in making a game out of building characters instead of playing them. That's fine if that's how you get your jollies, but let's not misinterpret their role as being conceived to help actual play. Cause it's not.

I think you are overgeneralizing here, Sladd!

There´s character building and there´s character optimization.
Respectfully abbreviated "CO".

And the CO-guys, they really are volunteer playtesters. WotC should give them money. And it´s part of the CO-creed to "honour the DM & his campaign". They even turn down requests by people whom they think are not subscribing to that creed.