Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Do people in your games actually use "builds"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 5922942" data-attributes="member: 32740"><p>Would I let a player use a "build". Probably, unless it became a disruption. That's happened without actually having a "build" as such.</p><p> </p><p>Have they used builds? Nope. Never. Not a one. That isn't to say that characters haven't trended towards optimizaiton, but it's a general optimization. Certain ability scores matter a great deal more or less than others. Certain skills get used a lot. Others not at all. Points thus gravitate into the more commonly useful skills. What a player wants a PC to be good at he or she <em>emphasizes</em>, but does not <em>build his character around that</em>. If "non-optimal" skills nonetheless provide the player with a heightened sense of what his character is supposed to be good at then those abilities are emphasized so that if/when they DO come into play the character is good at them - but, again, they never BUILD characters around it.</p><p> </p><p>Characters also do not always go unplanned, nor evolve strictly organic fashion. A 2E psion for example is a case where the character MUST be planned, in detail, at EVERY level from start to end in order to be able to qualify for abilities which the player may want his character to have at high levels. They CANNOT be put together haphazardly and still expect to gain abilities later that the player desires. In 3E players who were interested in a particular prestige class needed to QUALIFY for that class with certain skill levels and thus would plan out their characters development accordingly. But the purpose in achieving the prestige class was not to maximize skills but merely to establish a general concept or simply to obtain abilities the player desired that were otherwise not available.</p><p>I wouldn't use the word "weaknesses". Almost nobody looks at a character with a weakness and says, "Yeah! Now that will be FUN!" It is when they find an ability and say, "That'll be fun!" but then find they may need to make sacrifices to achieve it. And it is seldom a need to be better at that ability than anyone else in the game world could ever possibly be - just that they have an ability which others don't and that the character IS good at it.</p><p> </p><p>It is not a crime for a PC to be good at something but the point of the game is not a challenge to push the envelope of what's achievable in the game until just before it completely breaks. For the people I have always gamed with the fun is to be found in the adventures the PC's undertake, the memorable moments on those adventures brought about by characters, places, and events. Noboby I game with has ever had to "build" maximally efficient, exceptionally specialized and optimized characters in order to get that. The fun is not in BUILDING the character (in fact the less of that the better), the fun is in PLAYING characters.</p><p> </p><p>Players don't <em>need</em> to have characters with drawbacks, hindrances in order to roleplay well. In my experience, however, players do find it easier to roleplay well a character who faces challenges. If a character has it too easy then they do indeed tend to become very two-dimensional. The more specialized and optimized they are the LESS interesting the player finds the character in the long term. PLAYING the character becomes boring, tedious and they soon seek an alternative.</p><p> </p><p>But that's MY experience and I don't really expect <em>everyone</em> elses approach to play to match my own. Just most. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 5922942, member: 32740"] Would I let a player use a "build". Probably, unless it became a disruption. That's happened without actually having a "build" as such. Have they used builds? Nope. Never. Not a one. That isn't to say that characters haven't trended towards optimizaiton, but it's a general optimization. Certain ability scores matter a great deal more or less than others. Certain skills get used a lot. Others not at all. Points thus gravitate into the more commonly useful skills. What a player wants a PC to be good at he or she [I]emphasizes[/I], but does not [I]build his character around that[/I]. If "non-optimal" skills nonetheless provide the player with a heightened sense of what his character is supposed to be good at then those abilities are emphasized so that if/when they DO come into play the character is good at them - but, again, they never BUILD characters around it. Characters also do not always go unplanned, nor evolve strictly organic fashion. A 2E psion for example is a case where the character MUST be planned, in detail, at EVERY level from start to end in order to be able to qualify for abilities which the player may want his character to have at high levels. They CANNOT be put together haphazardly and still expect to gain abilities later that the player desires. In 3E players who were interested in a particular prestige class needed to QUALIFY for that class with certain skill levels and thus would plan out their characters development accordingly. But the purpose in achieving the prestige class was not to maximize skills but merely to establish a general concept or simply to obtain abilities the player desired that were otherwise not available. I wouldn't use the word "weaknesses". Almost nobody looks at a character with a weakness and says, "Yeah! Now that will be FUN!" It is when they find an ability and say, "That'll be fun!" but then find they may need to make sacrifices to achieve it. And it is seldom a need to be better at that ability than anyone else in the game world could ever possibly be - just that they have an ability which others don't and that the character IS good at it. It is not a crime for a PC to be good at something but the point of the game is not a challenge to push the envelope of what's achievable in the game until just before it completely breaks. For the people I have always gamed with the fun is to be found in the adventures the PC's undertake, the memorable moments on those adventures brought about by characters, places, and events. Noboby I game with has ever had to "build" maximally efficient, exceptionally specialized and optimized characters in order to get that. The fun is not in BUILDING the character (in fact the less of that the better), the fun is in PLAYING characters. Players don't [I]need[/I] to have characters with drawbacks, hindrances in order to roleplay well. In my experience, however, players do find it easier to roleplay well a character who faces challenges. If a character has it too easy then they do indeed tend to become very two-dimensional. The more specialized and optimized they are the LESS interesting the player finds the character in the long term. PLAYING the character becomes boring, tedious and they soon seek an alternative. But that's MY experience and I don't really expect [I]everyone[/I] elses approach to play to match my own. Just most. :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Do people in your games actually use "builds"
Top