There's nothing wrong with the building mechanics themselves, nor is there anything wrong with a group that likes a game with a lot of character-building.
Fair enough, I just didn't get that perspective based on your first post. Whether you like the process of building or not is immaterial to me, it was just the reasons you gave that struck me as peculiar. I'm glad to have a better understanding of your position. Nearly as glad as I am that this didn't turn into INTERNET FIGHT!
My personal preference is to run/play in a version of the game that minimizes character building, that's all. I really don't enjoy building characters (although years ago I used to), and, IME, lots of character building rules/options tends to make the game more "rules heavy" than I like to deal with.
Understandable. It's certainly clear that a system with little or no room for serious build optimization (or other forms of rules mastery) is less likely to attract players for whom those parts of a game are a big draw. Those sorts of dynamics will alter the "gamer demographic" from which players of that specific game are drawn. Insofar as the many fiddly bits of recent D&D editions is a draw to those who like rules mastery, we are more likely to run into D&D players for whom that is the chief or only draw (for better or worse...they deserve the opportunity to play too, but they don't deserve to ruin games.)
When I DM, I really don't follow any hard-and-fast rules to coming up with monsters, traps, and other challenges for the PCs. I just try to dream up something, give it the stats that I feel are about right, and run with it. I personally don't see a need for hard-and-fast building rules for the DM as long as he's being fair (although I can see how some DMs may like such rules and find them useful).
I'm definitely of the latter type. In world-building I prefer to think of all creatures as being derived from the same basic rules, and for me that forms a pillar of the world's coherence and verisimilitude. It's not an absolute rule, but I deviate from it with caution, albeit somewhat more frequently after 4e's release, because it
damages my own view of what I'm creating. For example, I'd never give a 3.5 creature more hit points without giving them HD, Con, or some appropriate feat, barring a seriously compelling in-world reason. The fact that elites in 4e just get more hit points without changing levels bothers me a bit conceptually, but when working in 4e I just go with it because it's a foundational assumption of the mechanics, and also because sometimes leads to serious pragmatic advantages (but it's a tradeoff I take seriously). Since I also find optimization to be inherently interesting, the framework that treats all creatures as derived from common rules serves me much better in most cases.
Fortunately, the hobby supports many types. I'm playing two campaigns at the moment. The first uses a custom character point system which has a lot of the build and tactical knobs I love because I and the other designer wanted them there. The second is a Call of Cthulu campaign with a pregen character the DM handed me at the first session. Both great games, and frequently for very different reasons.
