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 (http://the-tall-man.livejournal.com/106182.html).
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.
Quote from: SettembriniI think you are overgeneralizing here, Sladd!
Quote from: MeAs a side note, while I am not opposed to efficient builds and build advice (as opposed to hyper-optimized ones)
If I'm acknowledging there is a good and a bad to way to go about this, just how am I "over-generalizing"? :confused:
I think there's a difference between gaming the system just to take advantage of the group, and putting together a really neat synergized package.
And of course this is all focused towards actual playing... It's D&D, after all, we play every week!
I have done exactly one build like this that hasn't been played yet: it's a character using the necropolitan template. (So far, that's the issue.. nobody will let me play an undead character). In any case, normally, I'm the GM, so I see all kinds of cute little plans like this. I think they are pretty cool.
In general, I allow just about everything, as long as it's legally built. I have seen abuse by one or two players, (in one memorable case, a lizardfolk druid who didn't bother to add in his hit dice to his LA, ended up really taking advantage of a group--but again, that's an illegal build). This was in 2005 where I was not hosting the game, and not the GM. I eventually left that particular group, but I appreciated the openness.
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).
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.
I first encountered the concept of Character Building actually when I played my first game of Traveller which has a Skills building system. This was when Traveller first came out way back when. I don't remember the year or if D&D 2 was out yet. But it really struck me with Traveller - "wow cool, I can actually BUILD my Character and his Skills wrap upward into a career path". Not only did I really like that aspect but it also taught me a pretty cool life lesson - I can build my own real world career in the same way, by accumulating Skills. Thus when I started building my Career set in high school and then in college I picked out those Skills that would make me a good Gamesmaster! :D (Well, I could have shot for Starship Captain, which was my second choice).
- Mark
Quote from: Abyssal MawBut 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 here. One of my favourite characters was a dwarven Sorcerer. I put the 18 i rolled into Con and my 16 into Cha. Racial adjustments later: Con 20, Cha 14. I just upped my Charisma at every fourth level. I chose a toad familiar (in v3 that gave you +2 Con!) and viola! A Con 22 Sorcerer. I also chose Toughness for his 1st level feat (maybe a bit of a waste, but it fit my vision of the character as a mystic warrior of Moradin). So 1st level Sorcerer with 13 hits!
As he got progressed, i got little, personal magics, things like Mage Armor, True Strike, Cat's Grace, Levitate and the like. He rocked mightily. A bit later i decided to go sonic (roar of Moradin) and got stuff like Sound Burst, Shatter and Shout. By the time i retired him at 13th level, i think he had something like 93 hit points (his toad got offed at about 6th level and i never replaced it, so i should have had 105 hits really) and an AC of 22 in most situations (or something like that anyhow).
Although, he wasn't as cool as the fighter or ranger/rogue in combat, taking craft arms & armor and making your own magic stuff certainly allowed him to mix it up and with true strike, he was a terror on his first turn. IIRC, he was made an honoury Priest of Moradin because of his insistance that his powers came from the God.
Blimey, i want to get him going again! :D
Quote from: One Horse TownSame here. One of my favourite characters was a dwarven Sorcerer. I put the 18 i rolled into Con and my 16 into Cha. Racial adjustments later: Con 20, Cha 14. I just upped my Charisma at every fourth level. I chose a toad familiar (in v3 that gave you +2 Con!) and viola! A Con 22 Sorcerer. I also chose Toughness for his 1st level feat (maybe a bit of a waste, but it fit my vision of the character as a mystic warrior of Moradin). So 1st level Sorcerer with 13 hits!
As he got progressed, i got little, personal magics, things like Mage Armor, True Strike, Cat's Grace, Levitate and the like. He rocked mightily. A bit later i decided to go sonic (roar of Moradin) and got stuff like Sound Burst, Shatter and Shout. By the time i retired him at 13th level, i think he had something like 93 hit points (his toad got offed at about 6th level and i never replaced it, so i should have had 105 hits really) and an AC of 22 in most situations (or something like that anyhow).
Although, he wasn't as cool as the fighter or ranger/rogue in combat, taking craft arms & armor and making your own magic stuff certainly allowed him to mix it up and with true strike, he was a terror on his first turn. IIRC, he was made an honoury Priest of Moradin because of his insistance that his powers came from the God.
Blimey, i want to get him going again! :D
You should have a look at the Binder from Tome of Magic. The primary stat is Constitution (secondary is charisma). The whole idea is you bind these spirits which give you little power packages. So for example, if you bind Amon, you get a pair of ram's horns to make a charge attack, plus a breath weapon, plus.. some other set of bonuses. And you can switch them out every day. It's basicly a non-casting spellcaster (oxymoron?) built around supernatural abilities. Very cool. My Undermountain character that will debut at GenCon is a Mongrelfolk Binder armed with a scythe. I see him as sort of a ragged lurker scavenger who hangs around the entrance to Undermountain offering his services as a guide.
d8 hit points, light armor, simple weapons, cleric-style progression on BAB.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw]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.
I can't say I'm shocked. I just disagree with you on so many levels. But your attitude certainly explains some of my previous D&D experiences though. You're basically saying the mini-maxers/munchkins are better
players.
QuoteImagine 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.
Really? IMHO, the only real measure of player "skill" as far as I'm concerned, is their ability to contribute to the overall entertainment of the group and to help create memorable gaming sessions. What you are describing, those qualities that make obvious the more experienced players from the less experienced, is just that - experience. Familiarity with the rules.
Quote from: Tyberious FunkI can't say I'm shocked. I just disagree with you on so many levels. But your attitude certainly explains some of my previous D&D experiences though. You're basically saying the mini-maxers/munchkins are better players.
Hell yes, that's exactly what they are.
Quote from: Abyssal MawHell yes, that's exactly what they are.
For certain values and skill sets.
But only for some.
Quote from: Abyssal MawHell yes, that's exactly what they are.
I knew I'd get a chance to use this emoticon someday...
:rollbarf:
Quote from: Tyberious FunkI can't say I'm shocked. I just disagree with you on so many levels. But your attitude certainly explains some of my previous D&D experiences though. You're basically saying the mini-maxers/munchkins are better players.
No shit. That's what being good at a game
means.
The trick is that "fun" is not a unified concept with a single source that produces it. Many skills contribute to "fun" in a game session. Some these skills involve roleplaying, some involve coming up with clever ideas, and some involve cunning use of the mechanics. To prioritise one over the other is arbitrary, whether one is talking about speaking in character or discovering synergistic uses of feats.
If I'm at home, the min-max 20 levels in advance players irritate me. But when I was in RPGA, playing what for all intents and purposes were competitive scenarios with a group of strangers, I loved the min-maxers. I wouldn't want to "lose" a scenario because the other guys around the table were "just trying to have a good time."
It's a whole different mindset that I have little use for at my table. But if I start doing some Living SpyCraft, I might see if I can sharpen those skills again . . .
It might be worth expressing the way I thinking about this.
I draw a distinction between the game and the meta-game. Someone who is good at the game is good at achieving the goals that the game sets forth within the framework it provides. All the other things surrounding the game -- whether you had fun, whether the same guys will want to play next week, whether you broke the binding of your new book -- are part of the meta-game.
A good powergamer is good at the game. Someone who increases his fun and that of others is good at the meta-game.
Quote from: hgjsNo shit. That's what being good at a game means.
Good at the
Game aspect, yes. However, you can be an excellent Min/Maxer and still be a horrid Role Player (I've seen a few in my day). So being good at Min/Maxing seems to me to be only half the equation for a Role Playing Game. Now to be Great at a Role Playing Game, I think, requires that you be good at both Min/Maxing AND Role Playing. And therefore you can be a Good Role Player and a not-so-great Min/Maxer and STILL be Good at a Role Playing Game, because Role Playing is half of what the Role Playing Game is about.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe trick is that "fun" is not a unified concept with a single source that produces it. Many skills contribute to "fun" in a game session. Some these skills involve roleplaying, some involve coming up with clever ideas, and some involve cunning use of the mechanics. To prioritise one over the other is arbitrary, whether one is talking about speaking in character or discovering synergistic uses of feats.
My point exactly. If you (I mean the general "you") enjoy optimising character builds, then go ahead and knock yourself out. That's
your fun.
My fun, might be something quite different.
Trying to tell me that one method is inherrently better than another... well, to be honest, that's fucking swine-talk. Apparently, because my group are more inclined to build interesting characters rather than optimised ones, we must be doing it wrong.
On the other hand, don't forget the reverse is true. Simply because you can build a character with psychological complexity, one shouldn't be let off the hook for taking the Quick Draw feat at 1st level.
The most important thing is to be in tune with one's group. If everyone else is building optimised characters and the DM is swapping out Alertness on monster builds, you should also strive to build a character who will match his allies mechanically. If everyone is focusing on writing back stories filled with hooks, you should spend less time figuring out how to get an additional +1 to hit at 5th level, and more time on building relationships to the world and the story.
Now ideally, I don't see a need to choose between the two. I'd love to play in a game where everyone was a "chain-gun tripper" with the depth of Hamlet.
I think folks are getting drawn into the whole rpg roll v role misconception best left buried, because we (well most of us) realize that the "g" in rpg also means gestalt.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Tyberious FunkMy point exactly. If you (I mean the general "you") enjoy optimising character builds, then go ahead and knock yourself out. That's your fun. My fun, might be something quite different.
Trying to tell me that one method is inherrently better than another... well, to be honest, that's fucking swine-talk. Apparently, because my group are more inclined to build interesting characters rather than optimised ones, we must be doing it wrong.
See, you have to keep in mind, your'e the one who disdains the so-called "munchkins", while the reverse isn't true. I'm not saying people shouldn't work together or roleplay anywhere, either. I'm talking about the "game" part of roleplaying.
The roleplaying part of RPG is something every individual has to work out for themselves. Not everyone wants to be a performance artist, and frankly I think it's a lot more of a stretch to see people get together recreationally for "roleplaying" rather than get people together to "play a game".
Quote from: Abyssal MawThe roleplaying part of RPG is something every individual has to work out for themselves. Not everyone wants to be a performance artist, and frankly I think it's a lot more of a stretch to see people get together recreationally for "roleplaying" rather than get people together to "play a game".
Y'know, you've dropped the whole "performance art" bullshit a couple of times now. Just because I don't dig on trying to create optimised character builds, doesn't suddenly make my prefered style of game like amateur theatre night. There is a middle ground you know.
Quote from: Tyberious FunkY'know, you've dropped the whole "performance art" bullshit a couple of times now. Just because I don't dig on trying to create optimised character builds, doesn't suddenly make my prefered style of game like amateur theatre night. There is a middle ground you know.
You misunderstand:
It's not one or the other. You can have both. But what I want to stress is that 'roleplaying' is merely a descriptive adjective. If you're going to discuss games, you need to discuss them
as games.
This hobby is not
about performance. Pretending it is has not benefited anyone.
Just happened to notice this over at EN World...
"What I did was to maximize the potential of each of my PCs while staying within not only the rules but also the spirit of the game. The success of such play is wholly within the realm of the game form. Excellence of play is rewarded, while incompetence is penalized.
Power gaming is entirely different from playing well. Never once was I attempting to have the most powerful character, only to play to the best of my ability within the framework of the game rules and the DM's campaign, the scenario presented at the time."
--Gary Gygax
Quote from: GrimGentJust happened to notice this over at EN World...
"What I did was to maximize the potential of each of my PCs while staying within not only the rules but also the spirit of the game. The success of such play is wholly within the realm of the game form. Excellence of play is rewarded, while incompetence is penalized.
Power gaming is entirely different from playing well. Never once was I attempting to have the most powerful character, only to play to the best of my ability within the framework of the game rules and the DM's campaign, the scenario presented at the time."
--Gary Gygax
From where I'm standing, that line's looking pretty hazy.
Not that I don't
understand (or at least, have my own
understanding). Holding up your end and making yourself an asset to the group is
playing well. Breaking the spirit of the rules to make a kickass character that discards enjoyment and believability in the name of mechanical dominance is not playing well.
Must be old age, but I find myself increasingly in agreement with Slaadman.
Re. the quote, I think what EGG is trying to get at is ye olde '70s D&D ethos:
"So in our OD&D game, I rolled 3d6 down the line: Got a 6 in Wis, which zaps my Cleric concept; everything else is around 9, but I have a 13 in Cha. Well, I guess I have to suck it up--play a Thief who doesn't know his job properly and who has zero foresight, but who at least has a silken tongue and better party leader skills than everyone else."
So, EGG's idea of "playing well" is situational power gaming: make the most of what fate hands to you--no point-buy.
That does tend to make loophole abuse a lesser issue... if only because your typical loophole abuser won't ever play in a game where he's handed a PC like the above. :D
For me, character builds fight against exploring play of a new, different, or interesting character that is not optimized. The game, the gaming group, and my own character preferences make me feel encouraged to do it. Part of my love of MARVEL's random character creation is making sense of a character I normally wouldn't make on my own to play. I like the idea of playing characters that go against archetype like a physically hulking not overly intelligent wizard but I'm nervous about making myself so inferior that I'm not contributing to the party or the game.
Quote from: Abyssal MawThis hobby is not about performance. Pretending it is has not benefited anyone.
Except that noone here is doing that. You're making shit up. You're trying to tell me that there is some "superior" way to play RPGs, and I just don't see it. Apparently, any time I have a choice between purchasing a skill that provides greater power versus one that it is more appropriate to my character, by chosing the latter, I'm suddenly not doing it right. If I don't seek out the kewlest, most l33t combos, I'm an inferior player.
Why stop there, though? I should be buying as many supplements as possible, and spending as much time as I can spare reading and learning all the intricacies of the rules. After all, that's what the guys who write "build guides" do. What do you mean you don't own the
Complete Guide to Nose Pickers? Dude! There are so many kewl Nose Picking Feats you can take to totally make your character rad. Take the Nose Picker prestige class, add Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation in Finger, take the Deep Knuckle technique and buy an Hanky of Protection. FTW!
What do you mean you don't want to actually
play a Nose Picker? Well, don't worry. Because most of the guys producing build guides never actually play the characters they propose.
But apparently they are nonetheless "superior" players.