Building a character is like designing a magic deck...

[Umbran]

"5 - It can be like building a Magic deck if you want it to be, but it's not necessary."

I agree with this. You can make it like that, if you so desire. But it has never been so in any game I've run, and my players prefer it that way. They created characters, I vetted them for balance relative to one another, and we play. They are not concerned with optimization, and I manage to challenge them enough to keep things lively, and keep them on their toes.

 

[exile]

I'm glad to find that I'm not the only one who had trouble answering this question. I do often sit surrounded by my books looking for just the write race/class/feat/spell/weapon/etc. for my characters...and for the most part I enjoy it. The difference is when I did so for Magic, I was usually looking for a "winning" deck, when doing so for D&D, it's for a "fun" character. I guess the question became easier to answer when I recalled that I used to also build Magic decks for fun.

Chad

 

[Imaro]

I have to agree that D&D has become(IMHO) very similar to MTG. I feel what increases the situation is that certain feats, skills, etc. are arguably just better than others. The problem I see with this is that one must totally understand the intricacies of the game in order to realize this. And actually since by RAW you can die, there is at least competition in the sense that you want to be equipped to overcome the challenges presented by the DM and survive. Thus an inferior feat is a hinderance to this and less likely to be taken thus it ends up being a waste of space in the rulebook.

Another point, which was stated above, is that not only do you have to plan ahead for PrC's but many of the feats are built upon prerequisites which must be planned out ahead of time in order to attain a certain feat.

I find these mechanics really promote an inorganic type of character development unless you are willing to accept being inferior to the player who does optimize(builds a better deck).

 

[Abisashi]

I said It is, and I love it. About half of one of my D&D groups plays magic. I am probably the most serious player among us (that is, sometimes they judge instead of play). Building characters is lots of fun, I think - though my desire to min/max characters makes having lots of NPCs difficult when I DM. I wouldn't mind playing in a campaign with a lot less options, however.


















P.S.: Demonfire you.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I voted for the fourth option.

If it's not PC/console/video games, it's MtG, eh?

 

[Doghead Thirteen]

I haven't voted because there isn't the right reply.

To me, generating a character is simultaneously as big a deal as plotting out the next arc of Star Trek, and as little a deal as deciding what colour socks to wear tomorrow. Sure, we all want to play cool characters - but my group tends to differentiate between 'cool' and 'munchkin'. The coolest character in our group EVER was purposefully hamstrung by bad skill/advantage choices - yet this character ended up as one of the ones we define the game by.

 

[Sadrik]

Being sub-optimal or even disadvantaged is what makes stories, NPCs and PCs interesting.

That said, I think the game is suffering a bit from overload- similar to magic. The game gets to a point where the number of options you have become too many and confusing and combos become too good. When magic comes to a point where there are too many cards in the pool of options they reset the card pool with a new base set. The base set brings back popular choices from the past but also brings new options in to give the new set of cards a new flavor. Now it has been years and years since I have played magic but I have played other CCG's competitively and the number of hours that I spent building, optimizing, meta-gaming and planning is extremely similar to what I have been doing with D&D for all these years.

And if you don't think you do this... when was the last time you put ranks into use rope skill! (please no, "Hey I do's.") The point is we all meta-game in what we think the DM will call for and apply the skill and feats that we think will make our character the most useful as possible.

This leads me into- the argument that it is different because its a team game not a 1 on 1 game. I don't agree each player is going to play a niche and you need to be the most optimized in that niche. I have played games where my niche (generally a wizardy character) is being covered by others too. It makes the overall game experience a little less enjoyable for both of us. From my experience, that is why generally everyone tries to select their own niche. No ones toes get stepped on. And in that situation you want your niche to be as optimal as possible- so you don't hit a tpk or simply to have your character survive.

With as many options as are available now. Every character (niche) can be not only optimal but extra-optimal with a little work in selecting feats, skills, classes and PrCs. To me this spells a magic style reset. Because me as a player, I know myself, likes to play the game with considering and min/maxing every option. Call it my love of games, my competitive streak whatever. Too many options to consider does become annoying. I spend too many hours- considering characters. I want to be able to make a 10th level character in less than an hour- my life is too busy! And whatever I say about this fact is doubly true when I DM.

Thanks for listening to my rant.

 

[Sadrik]

You need a 5th option:

"5 - It can be like building a Magic deck if you want it to be, but it's not necessary."

It only takes one player to ruin this. Optimization is the heart and soul of 3 ed. It is what sells books. The first thing I look at when I pick up a book is its spells, feat selections and base classes, then I briefly peruse the PrCs. That is how I decide if I am going to buy a book or not. I am sure others are similar in their subjective analysis of purchasing.

 

[Umbran]

It only takes one player to ruin this.

It takes one player, and a DM who isn't paying enough attention.

Optimization is the heart and soul of 3 ed. It is what sells books.

Options are the heart and soul of D&D. Options sell books. Options can be used for optimization, but that's far from their only use. Options can just as easily be used to make a character or whole campaign different, but still sub-optimal.

 

[Sadrik]

It takes one player, and a DM who isn't paying enough attention.

So you think that the DM is needed to force the players into playing his way. What happens when one of the players steps outside. Are they ostracized from the group? And why? Because they want to, "Play by the rules." At least that is what they would want to say. But here is an option that you may not have considered. What if the player discovers his supra-optimal character by dumb luck and he was not able to put his blinders on to avoid that situation (as I think your group does- is that right?)

Options can be used for optimization, but that's far from their only use. Options can just as easily be used to make a character or whole campaign different, but still sub-optimal.

Yes but it takes the extremely active DM to monitor and limit those options. Is everyone supposed to have an active DM or play by limiting themselves or having the DM limit them? A good suggestion but hardly the reality. I am personally playing the devil's advocate a bit here. I also limit the game and alter rules I think are broken or less than/more than optimal.