The mode of character generation has shifted along with mode of play.

Old style: Interact with the game-world situation, and let the GM decide what (if any) formal abstraction to apply.

New style: Focus first on the abstraction. Off the 'stats' list = out of mind.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;685557I'm going to ignore 3 pages of tangents, and suggest that if the OP likes to just go with a concept they should try Fantasy Craft. The rules will be familiar enough if you're already familiar with how 3.x plays, but the math behind it is much better. Some options are better than others, sure, but the difference between an optimized and unoptimized FC character is far less than that of the same thing in D&D 3.x. You're not going to break the system and need to be reined in if you optimize, and you're not going to gimp yourself by accident if you don't since there are few(if any) trap options. It's just really nice to know I can go from concept to completed character and know my guy will be useful in most situations without having to do a bunch of research to keep up with the other players.

While Fantasy Craft has some very cool stuff, I would advise anyone intersted in trying it to first visit the website and download the pre-gens. Then note that the character sheets are five pages long, and the typical third-level character has 22 special abilities or traits, most of which are unique abilities involving one of the myriad sub-systems.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;685412And how is that different from any other edition of D&D?  Players create characters (using rules) and the DM populates the world with monsters (usually from books - sometimes their own unique creations) and the players try to overcome those challenges.  Even the most sand-box style game has 'overcome challenges' as part of the play.  

In 3.x and every other version of the game, competition against the world is an expected part of play.  In every other version of the game, there is an expectation that the rules will be followed.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be any rules.  

The key difference between WOTC versions and older versions is that in older versions, the DM ran the game, NOT the rules. The world was for the players to explore and challenges were not hoops to be jumped through, but more often chosen by the players based on what level of risk and reward they wanted to assume.

There is also the major difference with regard to rules acceptance. In old school games, unless there was a rule that forbid something, it was a possibility. In WOTC versions with rules for everything the situation became reversed. The rules don't specify what you can't do anymore they explain in excruciating detail what you can do.

This has lead to a fixation in the minds of players, on what a character can accomplish mechanically, to a point of obsession. Builds are analyzed to ensure no decision is wasted on anything sub-optimal. Games are discarded and deemed not worthy of consideration if there is an insufficient amount of tweakable parts to stick to the characters and pity the game with any class that might a "dead level". :rolleyes:

Quote from: deadDMwalking;685412What you call deck-building, I call 'options'.  Options can make a game more interesting.  Everyone, including you, agrees with that.  The game wouldn't be as interesting if 'Fighter' were the only choice for class.  Having fighters and wizards and rogues and humans and elves and dwarves all make for more options and a more interesting game.  We might disagree on how many options is too many, and we might disagree when an option is inappropriate (can a ninja exist in a medieval Europe style game) - but to a point, options are good.  

Quote from: Haffrung;685435Optimizing is more than options. It's options with the knowledge that some of the synergies from those options can lead to characters that are far more powerful than non-optimized characters. If it was simply a matter of options, I would expect the fans of 3.x to be happy if there was a menu of 70 or 80 different character options, all equally powerful, that they could choose from. But I suspect that would not make them happy. The potential to try to break the game and create an uber-character is what drives a lot of the char op crowd. And again, that was new with WotC D&D because it simply wasn't possible earlier.

And you're being deliberately obtuse if you don't think it occurred to the company that made a fortune off M:tG that selling away-from-the-table optimization options to players could be a way to make a lot of money.

Haffrung nailed this one pretty good.

Quote from: Ravenswing;685606Hrm.  Because it didn't occur to you that someone who used a point-buy method of character generation just might, possibly, conceivably, not be playing D&D? Go figure.

When we're talking about rolling 3d6 in order for six stats, or 4d6 drop lowest, what game did you think we were talking about?  How many other games in the 70s and 80s had six stats and that was an option?

That's why it was pretty silly to say that I must be an outlier in a very small group when it was pretty clear everyone else in the thread knew we were talking about D&D.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684975

Which book is this image from? I like the artist's style.

As for character creation, I like to picture my character first and what do I want it to do, then try to approach that as much as possible from the system. On a general rule, I like simplicity when I create a character.

One way to put it, is that there's been a shift in focus from what players do to what characters 'are.'

I remember a D&Der saying, "If we add a Riding Proficiency, our characters will start falling out of their saddles." It's not necessarily so, but seeing how some people treated thief class functions was an early harbinger of absurdities to come.

Are we more interested in needing to make a bunch of rolls for riding, seamanship, or whatever -- or are we more interested in where and why a hero journeys, and what happens at the destination?

In the original D&D game, the lady knight in shining armor required no particular stats for realization; any fighter figure would do. It was simply a matter of acting in accordance with the role. A flamboyant pirate, laconic burglar, haughty savage, and so on, was likewise.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;685653When we're talking about rolling 3d6 in order for six stats, or 4d6 drop lowest, what game did you think we were talking about?  How many other games in the 70s and 80s had six stats and that was an option?

That's why it was pretty silly to say that I must be an outlier in a very small group when it was pretty clear everyone else in the thread knew we were talking about D&D.

Yeah it was pretty obvious you meant D&D.

Quote from: Phillip;685664One way to put it, is that there's been a shift in focus from what players do to what characters 'are.'

I remember a D&Der saying, "If we add a Riding Proficiency, our characters will start falling out of their saddles." It's not necessarily so, but seeing how some people treated thief class functions was an early harbinger of absurdities to come.

Are we more interested in needing to make a bunch of rolls for riding, seamanship, or whatever -- or are we more interested in where and why a hero journeys, and what happens at the destination?

In the original D&D game, the lady knight in shining armor required no particular stats for realization; any fighter figure would do. It was simply a matter of acting in accordance with the role. A flamboyant pirate, laconic burglar, haughty savage, and so on, was likewise.

In regards to riding prof. making people fall from the saddle...well...thats only going to happen if the gm forces ride rolls when they are not needed.
Presumably, you would only use ride prof under conditions the gm would have made some ruling like a dex roll or save if no ride prof existed.

Quote from: The Ent;685626FantasyCraft is a rather imposing tome, sure.
...he's still got a point. It does seem superior to 3e.

More 'balanced' than 3E, maybe. That's not a high bar to clear.

The very essence of FantasyCraft is charop - lots of arbitrary hoops to jump through in chargen where you take a class ability that gives a bonus feat that gives a bonus skill, to get around an arbitrary restriction on class X taking skill Y initially. You could get the same results with a much lighter system and support a wider variety of concepts with less screwing around.

Its complexity level in general and the way various options scale up or synergize implicitly support starting with an exciting feat combo and reverse engineering the character from that so you don't lose out on abilities from the wrong specialty/race pairing, or take a class second and lose the core ability, etc. The opposite of concept-first character design.

Quote from: Haffrung;685639While Fantasy Craft has some very cool stuff, I would advise anyone intersted in trying it to first visit the website and download the pre-gens. Then note that the character sheets are five pages long, and the typical third-level character has 22 special abilities or traits, most of which are unique abilities involving one of the myriad sub-systems.

Yeah, i wanted to like it, but there are just too many layers.

FantasyCraft is very complicated sure, and yeah charop is strong with that one. I like it anyway but have Little doubt GMing it would be a hassle. Hell character creation looks like it'd take a good long while Even if you know what you're going to play.

Ways to Go Lighter on Rules

1. Focus on the Distinctive (Don't Sweat the Common)
Imagine this character sheet:
** Conan the Cimmerian **
Not a Trekkie 10
Not a Computer Programmer 12
Not a Video Game Ace 11
Not a Great Fry Cook 9
... and so on.

Pretty silly, I think. Whether he's at home in the Hyborian Age or cast into the 21st century, the key piece of information there is "Cimmerian."

Now, suppose each figure has a standard list of 6 ability scores rolled on 3d6. If only 15+ gives a bonus, and only 6- gives a penalty, then the average figure has just 1 mechanically significant score. Listing just that 1 would suffice to indicate that the rest are "average." If we want to write up 5 more things, why not things that actually stand out?

The trend has been in the opposite direction: more "standard" factors, more precisely quantified. Rope Use +1, Jump 52%, etc.; it's not possible simply to say that Fred has twice the usual chance to spot a secret door, because there is no usual chance.

2. Assume What's Common for Player Characters
If we're playing a Musketeers game, I think we can assume some defaults. The PCs as a rule are not weaklings, klutzes or idiots. They are pretty competent at shooting, fencing and brawling; riding and driving; climbing, jumping, running and swimming; stealth and disguise; repartee; and carrying a jug of wine or a chicken through a fracas.

Instead of needing to jump through a lot of hoops to make a character who has such competence -- meanwhile allowing a "munchkin" to leave everyone else in his shadow -- why not simply take it for granted? Only really exceptional cases need be noted, and those don't necessarily have to be finely graded.

3. Lump, Don't Split
A descriptor such as an occupation (Musketeer) or background (Cimmerian) can indicate a lot of things without calling them out as discrete skills.

4. Get More Mileage from Common Factors
If we've got some handy widely applicable factors such as Dexterity, then many particular factors can be "binary" (got 'em or not).

Is Blind = can't see
Not a Brain Surgeon = the obvious, plus probably not as good as a brain surgeon at brain-surgery-related stuff
Really Big = good at sitting on pests, not so good at squeezing through narrow gaps

In other words, it's not necessary to keep track of separate numerical ratings for each descriptor.

Quote from: Phillip;6860813. Lump, Don't Split
A descriptor such as an occupation (Musketeer) or background (Cimmerian) can indicate a lot of things without calling them out as discrete skills.

Barbarians of Lemuria is based on this principle.
Isn't D&D Next going to have something like that as well, the "backgrounds"?

Except for the illustration - the opening post didn't make any sense to me.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Phillip;686081Ways to Go Lighter on Rules

1. Focus on the Distinctive (Don't Sweat the Common)

This was the approach I used with d4-d4. Everything had a rating of crap, poor, ordinary, good, etc. Strength, Rifles, Looks, Wealth, etc. Everything began at "ordinary", and you only bothered writing down what was worse or better than ordinary.