The "Build"

Umbran · Feb 27, 2007

mhacdebhandia said:
Any "build" is nothing more than a sensible mechanical representation of the character concept within the rules of the system.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. Some builds go beyond the merely "sensible" effort to reach optimization.

But then again, throwing yourself out of a perfeclty good aircraft, or tossing yourself down a mountainside with waxed sticks on your feet, or any number of other hobbies are not "sensible". But they can still be fun...

mhacdebhandia · Feb 27, 2007

Heh, but "pwnzor spellcaster" is a character concept.

What we should really be asking is "Do all players have reasonable character concepts?"

Glyfair · Feb 27, 2007

Gothmog said:
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.

Maybe, but I think a good percentage of these types of players were the ones that "in the old days" would complain "why can't I play this sort of character?" The answers were occasionally to point out optional articles that allowed it, but the answers were mostly "you can if your DM comes up with a way to do it." Then you heard a lot of "he says the rules don't let me." "Well, your out of luck then, find a new DM or suck it up."

Yes, I think there is more focus on "builds" now. However, that's because the game has become more focused on giving tools so that the players can play characters that mechanically work as envisioned. That's great for the character driven player, because he can better create what he wants to play. The side effect is that it opens the door to the min-max type player (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

I agree with the majority though. You see discussion of character stat building more than personality building because few really need help building a character personality. Those that do rarely are seeking help for it on a message board.

hong · Feb 27, 2007

Gothmog said:
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.

You assume there's something wrong with me playing with my fiddly bits. You evil person.

Glyfair · Feb 27, 2007

mhacdebhandia said:
Heh, but "pwnzor spellcaster" is a character concept.

What we should really be asking is "Do all players have reasonable character concepts?"

No, but there is not cut and dried criteria. What's "reasonable" for one group might not be for another. A character that's reasonable for a group of "beer and pretzel" roleplayers won't be considered reasonable when its player tries to bring it a game with a group of "method actor" players.

Herobizkit · Feb 27, 2007

People who play a lot of computer and console RPGs may tend to look more to the "game" part of "role-playing" of D&D. In a CRPG, the characters and their movitations are already created for you, and your job is to make the most effective character against the game's various challenges.

Carry this mentality over the DM who runs modules exclusively, and it makes sense that players would want the best "build" to take on monsters and take their stuff.

Gothmog · Feb 27, 2007

hong said:
You assume there's something wrong with me playing with my fiddly bits. You evil person.

Oh no, play with your own fiddly bits all you like. But don't go playing with other people's fiddly bits or forcing your fiddly bits on others (at least without their permission). And make no mistake, fiddling with fiddly bits is fun, but overfiddling the fiddly bits and missing the game is the sign of a lonely man and can cause rashes. And, um yeah...moving on. :heh:

TarionzCousin · Feb 27, 2007

Drowbane said:
QFT

For me, the Build is simply part of the character creation process. Personality happens at the table with interaction.

E.g., if you have a cool build when the game starts but no name, you can "earn" a name during the gaming process, right?

P.S. Be ready for Wednesday. Woo!

William drake · Feb 27, 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?

Yes, and I've never used a preset game. I refuse them, and when in the past I've seen them, or even read them, I found them boreing.

All the different books now are speaking a new breed of gamers that arn't, I'm sorry to say, very creative. The books are their game; or they play games that they've seen in movies.

Before you just needed the main book, and the DM needed his book, and the monster book: but you might not need that if one was able to think, and create on ones own.

However, I dont fault those who look at those things. If they need them, thats fine, and it gets them gaming. I just hope that one day they dont need it any more.

Sparafucile · Feb 27, 2007

Glyfair said:
I agree with the majority though. You see discussion of character stat building more than personality building because few really need help building a character personality. Those that do rarely are seeking help for it on a message board.

QFT

Also, while there are plently of threads about character backgrounds and stories on the boards, they aren't really a dialogue, per se. A single poster is in control of the content, and any suggestions and kudos that the OP sparks are technically subordinate.

Discussions of rules such as "builds," on the other hand, have an equality of purpose that allow each poster to truly interact with each other. It isn't planned and it doesn't reflect the sum total of each gamer's experience. . . it's just the phenomena where conflict and dialogue come together in an interesting way.