The "Build"

Goldmoon · Feb 26, 2007

It seems all I see nowadays is "is there a build that does this?" What happened to "Is there a concept or idea that refelcts this?" Perhaps no one bothers to post role-playing ideas anymore and thus I dont see them, perhaps no one really has role playing ideas anymore and its all become mechanics. Has anyone else noticed a severe lack of character personality and an almost complete reliance on "builds" as a substitute for role-playing?

Nightfall · Feb 26, 2007

Most everyone can do a concept that doesn't require a knowledge of rules.

Korgoth · Feb 26, 2007

Goldmoon said:
It seems all I see nowadays is "is there a build that does this?" What happened to "Is there a concept or idea that refelcts this?" Perhaps no one bothers to post role-playing ideas anymore and thus I dont see them, perhaps no one really has role playing ideas anymore and its all become mechanics. Has anyone else noticed a severe lack of character personality and an almost complete reliance on "builds" as a substitute for role-playing?

I guess this thread won't cause any arguments.

Myself, I don't like the "build" mentality because it defines the character by his powers, feats and skills. Many "builds" are not seen as complete until the character reaches a high level and has both of his regular classes plus his prestige class.

I prefer the old way where a character could fit on a note card, your characterization was not tied to any specific list of abilities (which is also a list of limitations... i.e. the list of all of your feats also implies the list of all the things you absolutely cannot do) and the character mostly progressed upon a logical and archetypal path (and if they dual-classed it was a big deal). Similarly, I prefer an entirely handwaved "background as skill bundle" approach to what you know how to do. You simply say "Yes" to what is reasonable and go with it.

Though I'm less concerned about "role-playing", which doesn't need to particularly reflect much of what is written down about the character (two statistically identical characters can be extremely different in personality), than I am about the focus of the challenge. IMO, D&D is about challenging the wits of the players. You don't roll your Int to solve a riddle, you don't roll your Diplomacy (the absolute worst corruption of D&D of all time) to talk your way past the guards and you don't roll your Profession: Tactician to decide whether to flank the troglodyte or drink your potion of growth. It's not "DM vs. Players", but it is "Players vs. the Dungeon". Clever players are the ones who should be rewarded, not the Master Deckbuilder turned Prestige Class PunPun Master.

That's me talking about my understanding of the game, its original and core object-of-play and my personal refined aesthetic.

Umbran · Feb 26, 2007

Goldmoon said:
It seems all I see nowadays is "is there a build that does this?" What happened to "Is there a concept or idea that refelcts this?" Perhaps no one bothers to post role-playing ideas anymore and thus I dont see them, perhaps no one really has role playing ideas anymore and its all become mechanics.

Well, the thing is the answer to, "Is there a concept or idea that reflects X?" should, of course, be X! The question generally contains its own answer.

People come here and ask about builds and mechanics because those can be difficult to research or build on one's own. It doesn't require research or rules-mastery to develop a personality, and nobody here is going to be able to tell you how to best play a personality that you created yourself.

Goddess FallenAngel · Feb 26, 2007

Umbran said:
Well, the thing is the answer to, "Is there a concept or idea that reflects X?" should, of course, be X! The question generally contains its own answer.

People come here and ask about builds and mechanics because those can be difficult to research or build on one's own. It doesn't require research or rules-mastery to develop a personality, and nobody here is going to be able to tell you how to best play a personality that you created yourself.

I have to agree with this. I haven't a problem coming up with a roleplaying character or concept on my own. I do, sometimes, have problems finding a class that will reflect that. Now, I'd rather post "I need a build that can do X" - with X being what my character will do - rather than "I need a build for this character..." and add 3 pages of text.

Why?

Because in messageboards, you will get more responses with a short and concise post rather than a lengthy story. Not a problem, just the way it is (I could go into the psychology of it, but not without derailing this thread).

And just posting "I want a build for an Gandalf-like mage" doesn't work, in my opinion, because everyone has a different idea of what classes and abilities Gandalf has (not the best example, perhaps, but what I could come up with on short notice). It's easier to decide what you want your mage to be like and do, and then ask for help on a build that will accomplish that.

Corinth · Feb 26, 2007

Build, as with gear, trumps role-playing because what you do is more important than who you are. We're playing an adventure game, and adventure is all about what you do with the situation you're in- who you are decidedly secondary in priority.

Gothmog · Feb 26, 2007

Goldmoon said:
It seems all I see nowadays is "is there a build that does this?" What happened to "Is there a concept or idea that refelcts this?" Perhaps no one bothers to post role-playing ideas anymore and thus I dont see them, perhaps no one really has role playing ideas anymore and its all become mechanics. Has anyone else noticed a severe lack of character personality and an almost complete reliance on "builds" as a substitute for role-playing?

In general, I think (hope) most people don't need help coming up with a character concept. A character IS his background, personality, motivations, and deeds, and it shouldn't be too hard for someone to come up with some interesting ideas.

That said, since the "build" mentality came around, I've seen lots of people, both new to D&D and D&D veterans focus more on the character abilities, feats, prestige classes and gear than at any time in the past. I think this is due to the number of fiddly bits 3.x has, and so many players get lost in playing with their fiddly bits that they lose sight of the character and his motivations.

Take for example my buddy who is a vet of 1st and 2nd edition, and is usually a great roleplayer. About a year after 3E came out, we were starting a new campaign, and I asked him to tell me about his character and why is adventuring. He rattled off a long list of stats, feats, and the prestige classes he was trying to qualify for, but not a word about his character's background, personality, or motivations for adventuring. When I asked him, he said "oh, his family got killed by blah blah and now Tarkith seeks vengeance and to forget his past." Blah. The loner with no family, no connection, and a vengeful attitude is fine for a 12 year old gamer, but not for a guy who has spent 2 decades making memorable characters. When I pointed this out to him, he sat back and said "Whoah, you're right. I guess I got so wrapped up in tweaking my character, I lost sight of whats important." We went on to play for about a year in that campaign, and Tarkith became another one of his great and memorable characters for his personality and motivations, NOT because of his abilities.

IME, a lot of people who have played previous editions do get lost in the "build" mentality because its there and an integral part of the game now more than it ever has been in the past. I admit I like to try new ideas and combinations of abilities as well- everyone likes to see their character become more powerful and develop their abilities. But IME a LOT of people who play D&D now forget about character motivation, personality, and history because those things are scarcely mentioned in the PHB or DMG as desirable or important, and the temptation to play with their fiddly bits is overpowering to a lot of people. And players new to 3.x don't even have the experience to draw on- I've played in a couple of newbie 3.x campaigns that were ONLY about character abilities and dungeon looting. Fine for some people, but to me its unbearably dull to go from dungeon to dungeon for no other reason than to kill and take stuff.

Gothmog · Feb 26, 2007

Corinth said:
Build, as with gear, trumps role-playing because what you do is more important than who you are. We're playing an adventure game, and adventure is all about what you do with the situation you're in- who you are decidedly secondary in priority.

Yep this is true in D&D, because other than alignment, there is no determinant of character personality or motivation. This is a shame to me because games like Pendragon have the morality axes for personality traits that really add to the game and make it a richer experience. I don't think anyone would argue that in real life, what you do is more important than who you are and your personality and connections to the world. Why should what you do be more important in a game unless your only purpose in gaming is escapism (which is fine, but another topic in itself)?

wayne62682 · Feb 26, 2007

The answer is that the "build" helps reinforce the role-playing. I can SAY that my character is a legendary swordsman or a master at archery or whatever else, but then I need to back it up in game; that's where the build should come into play - to justify the concept.

Kae'Yoss · Feb 26, 2007

That reminds me of our first Golden Alex winner:

GAW: "Can you write down 'Samurai' in Japanese symbols"
*Samurai is written/drawn down*
GAW: "And how do you pronounce that?