Do you like character building?

[MrGrenadine]

That's one of the reasons I like 4e much better than 3.x, actually. You don't have to worry about building your character "wrong", since it's harder to do so within the framework of the rules.

I'll answer the OP in a sec, but I have to say that I must be doing something wrong, 'cause wow, my experience has been completely different than yours. I'm playing a 7th level Battleguard of Tempus that I ported over from our 3.5 game--admittedly, before I truly understood how 4e worked--and I feel like I spend a LOT of time figuring out just how to keep up with the system math as we level up. A Cleric who can't hit except on a 16 or better isn't gonna really be that much of an asset to the group. My Cleric is MC Fighter, so I don't really worry about having to be the primary healer for the party, but still, I can't count the hours I've spent looking over the the Compendium trying to find good synergies between stats, equipment, feats, and Cleric and Fighter powers. I'm a Mac user, and don't have access to the Character Builder, so I made a spread sheet that I can enter different powers and feats into and see how it all works together, but it still takes a ton of time. And I'm not saying I'm looking for uber-powerful combos--I just want to make sure I have a good mix of single and group attacks that can hit a variety of defenses, and make sure I don't miss out on some logical and beneficial combination of powers and feats that will help me hit at least half the time.

I don't know--maybe in time it will come easier.

In answer to the OP, though--if you haven't guessed--I love character building in terms of thinking up a concept and finding cool powers, equipment and feat combos that can help make that character come to life. What I don't like (in both 3.5 and 4e) is the sense that I have to plan my lvl 1 character out to level 20 to make sure I don't paint myself into a corner along the way, (which I think is still a danger in 4e, even with the terrific retraining rules.)

 

[Mallus]

Or an infinite number of other ways to mix, match, or keep separate your character's "fluff" and "crunch."

Exactly.

I'm reminded of a PC, Burne the Alchemist, from my old 3e game. Even though he was written up using a mechanically-detailed system, by the end of the campaign, he had quite a few significant abilities with little or no mechanical representation, they were just "things Burne could do", because they fit the character, organically, even.

Or my 4e Dragonborn paladin. He's mostly personality. Yet at the same time, the rules do inform aspects of that personality. He a poet, but since there's no Skill: poetry in 4e, he uses Diplomacy and Intimidate, which led to idea Dragonborn love poetry consists of sweet talk and veiled threats of physical violence. And his most, umm, iconic shtick (and defining series of traits) comes from my parody of how the Defender marking rules would actually appear in-world.

Fluff informs crunch and crunch informs fluff, as needed by the player.

 

[Sunseeker]

False dichotomy is as false dichotomy does.

The character can be all of those things at the same time. The character can be defined by his background, but he expresses that background and experience during combat via your choice of feats/powers/what-have-you.

Of course the character CAN be, but the fact is that dichotomies are now our brains function, some people are left-brains, some people are right-brains, even though everyone uses both to do just about any given task. The point is that he conceptualizes a "character" as the WHO and WHAT, and the "building" as the mechanics.

I'm certain he understands that his character CAN have whatever mechanics he'd like to give them(within reason), but likewise in his conception, the character comes first, the person they are comes first, and certain how they fight may grow out of that.


Continuing to argue that his conceptualization is incorrect really is only going to lead to argument.

 

[coyote6]

It seems there are two definitions (let's assume same class and race, for the moment):

1. Character as mechanics [...]
2. Character as character [...]

FWIW, I prefer 3, where 3 = 1 + 2.

Without #2, the character is just a game piece; it's as character-y as the submarine in the Battleship game. Without #1, the character is functionally indistinguishable from every other characters with the same class/race/whatever mechanics do exist -- it's the Monopoly top hat to someone else's shoe.

(If there is absolutely zero of #1, then it's probably not a character in a game or RPG at all, it's an idea you have for a character in a story, so what's with all the dice and books and so forth? )

 

[Nadaka]

I like being able to make a character that reflects any of a wide variety of backgrounds with strengths, weaknesses and abilities that reflect that particular history.

I do not like having to conform precisely to a particular adventurer party role and having no ability outside that role.

This is why I prefer D&D 3.x over D&D 2e and D&D4, and why I prefer D20 Modern over them all.

Sure, it can lead to unbalanced parties, But it feels more organic and natural. There is a lot more to my games than just killing things and taking its stuff, so social and skill based characters have their moments to shine.

 

[Ariosto]

After all, if the process of getting drunk can have its own set of mechanics (1e DMG pgs 82-83), that differentiate it from all other activities, then why can't my fighter have some mechanics that differentiate him from all other fighters?

There is no reason at all, nor were you ever prohibited from having that!

Why must I be required to engage in an exercise that adds nothing to my enjoyment? The answer lies in a fundamental difference.

Dave Arneson, Gary Gygax, Len Lakofka, Dave Hargrave, and thousands of DMs cooked up complex treatments of whatever they and their players wanted to treat that way.

Now, those baroque house rules were house rules. Even the subset of things that appeared in "rule books" was not incumbent on everyone. There indeed can be a set of rules for intoxication, but it is not the case that there must be.

Note that, even if those rules are in effect, they do not introduce a whole new zero-sum game outside of the actual D&D game. They do not add a new currency to invest, the value of which depends on someone else getting screwed more in the "Drunks and Dopes" sub-game that thereby becomes mandatory.

The zero-sum nature of your demand is the critical difference.

Now, here is a funny thing. The Fantasy Trip had a points system for attributes, talents and spells. It was in a sense a simpler precursor of GURPS. It was one of my favorite games.

Dungeons & Dragons was also one of my favorite games.

Apparently, variety is outmoded. Liking more than one kind of thing is archaic. To the thoroughly modern game-player's mind, there is room only for the one "correct" thing. If D&D is not that, then D&D -- and D&Ders -- must be made to conform. Whoever entertains some other idea is obviously wrong, in both a factual and a moral sense.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Of course the character CAN be, but the fact is that dichotomies are now our brains function, some people are left-brains, some people are right-brains, even though everyone uses both to do just about any given task. The point is that he conceptualizes a "character" as the WHO and WHAT, and the "building" as the mechanics.

I'm certain he understands that his character CAN have whatever mechanics he'd like to give them(within reason), but likewise in his conception, the character comes first, the person they are comes first, and certain how they fight may grow out of that.


Continuing to argue that his conceptualization is incorrect really is only going to lead to argument.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. All I really said was that his definitions are too limiting.

He presented an either/or. EITHER the character is defined by numbers and abilities OR the character is defined by personality and background. This is a classic false dichotomy. We are not required to choose one or the other. It can be both. It can be neither. You could define your character entirely based on how the mini looks, if you want to.

Personally, I like systems that give me the option of expressing a character's background, training, personality, etc through mechanical choices, but that doesn't mean the mechanics are primary. They're just one of the ways I express the character. Am I defining my character by mechanics or by fluff? Hell, I can't tell which is the chicken and which is the egg, and I made the character. And my experience suggests that there's constant cross-pollination between the two.

An individual can choose to limit their "character building" to just the fluffier stuff or just the crunchier stuff, but Lanefan's argument is structured to say that they must limit themselves that way. That is patently false.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

How? Brainpower is brainpower. Humans suck at multitasking.

Nope.

No, but you may well be thinking about your attack bonus and which feat to use (orcs), or your social skills and relevant powers (the princess). Lots of people have observed players in 3E and 4E developing a kind of tunnel vision, seeing everything through the lens of powers and skills and feats, and ignoring the possibility of stepping outside what's written on the character sheet. That happens because it takes so much thought to sort through a PC's mechanical options that non-mechanical options get overlooked.

So you've never described an attack after making the roll, I take it? Because you're claiming that it's physically impossible to do both.

That's very obviously rubbish.

For that matter, are you going to seriously tell me that earlier editions didn't have attack bonuses?

If you're playing a fighter with Intelligence 8 (not unlikely if you're going the turnip farmer route), every skill point counts. It's not going to cripple you in combat, but you'll certainly feel the lack when your Climb or Swim skill suffers as a result.

That's ok, the wizard can cast a level 1 or level 2 spell to utterly eliminate the need for Climb or Swim

In 4E, there most certainly is such a thing as a non-advantageous background. For instance, Wisdom clerics have a strong incentive to pick a background that gives them Perception as a class skill; Perception is a massively useful skill, it keys off the cleric's prime stat, and by taking the appropriate background you can save yourself a feat on skill training. Picking a different background won't break your character, but it'll cost you either a feat or a valuable skill, which isn't negligible.

No and no.

Clerics do not require perception. Is perception nice? Of course! Is it a class skill? No. Is it needed? No. Are any cleric abilities tied to perception? No. Can you make a really awesome cleric without ever touching perception? Yes. Have you played 4e?

Either way, the system sets up incentives to put the mechanics first and contort your character's back story and persona to fit. All of D&D does that to some degree, of course--it's hard to justify being a professional scholar with an Int of 8, in any edition--but the more incentives there are and the more detailed their interactions, the stronger the pressure.

Only if you want it to. In fact, at least with 4e, it's the goddamn opposite - the reason classes are generally "fluff-less" bags of mechanics is because you're meant to make the character first and then choose which bag of mechanics fits it best. You're essentially telling us to stop putting the horse before the buggy.

I can show those things in 1E and 2E as well, and much more easily. In the little space on the character sheet where it says "Character History" or "Background" or whatever, I write, "Turnip farmer." Done. I don't see why you're hung up on needing mechanics to detail every little thing about your PC. Do you need to pull out the Book of Erotic Fantasy to state whether your character is straight or gay?

Stop being obtuse. Nobody is hung up on mechanics - nobody but you, that is. Some people prefer having a mechanical basis to show that their character is different. I can make Fighter X and Fighter Y and point at their differences that effect the in game rule system and say "look, these two are seperate, unique characters."

For all their flaws, and they have many, 1E and 2E recognize that you can create two totally different, distinct, and interesting characters with exactly identical stats. Or at least I can.

You can, the game cannot. That's the thing. You can write whatever you want under background. You can write "My fighter is actually Superman and Goku's baby who then was teleported into the D&D universe" if you so desire. And guess what? It would be just as valid as any other fighter.

Have you not heard the saying, "Experience builds character"?
Are you not acquainted with the meanings of the words in normal English, as opposed to D&D-geek-ish?

Between the hilariously lame insults, smug usage of needless obtuse language, and the goalpost moving, playing soccer with you must be the most nightmarish experience possible.

We're not going to get far here, as there's a pretty big gap between how you define a character and how I do.

It seems there are two definitions (let's assume same class and race, for the moment):

1. Character as mechanics - the character is defined by its numbers and abilities, with personality and background somewhat secondary and-or irrelevant unless somehow reflected in the mechanics.

2. Character as character - the character is defined by its personality and background, with mechanics and numbers somewhat secondary where relevant at all.

Playing D&D with you must be the most frustrating thing imaginable if you honestly think those two are somehow seperate.

"I attack the orc! I raise my longsword and - "
"Whoh whoh, don't describe it man. I need to know how much damage you do. You can't do both things at once."

You (and 3e, and to some extent 4e) clearly go for the first definition. I (and 0-1e and to some extent 2e) prefer the second.

No, good players do both, and bad players try to set up dichotomies and make others "choose."

Incidentally, bad players typically brag about being able to do one, and in reality are just terrible at both.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's a very interesting question, to what extent do the game mechanics map to features of the game world (and vice versa), here with regards to character. A massive question, really. I think some mechanics don't mean very much, they're abstract, like some interpretations of hit points, action points, hero points in M&M, and so forth, whereas some mechanics do tell you something real about a character - the six stats, for example.

I like the idea that we can use the mechanics to distinguish between characters, especially PCs. I want them to be mechanically individualised. I mean all these numbers are floating around in rpgs, it would be nice if they were actually good for something.

The turnip farmer, in 3e, I think should be a 1st level commoner. To make him competitive with the other PCs he could have higher stats, assuming that's the character concept. 18 str and con seem appropriate, a real giant of a man. That's system doing its job imo, it's distinguished between good natural abilities but no training or real fighting experience, and the better trained but lower statted 1st level fighter. Not strongly distinguished, mind you, but it's something.

I remember having difficulty with a pirate PC in 1e Warhammer who I envisaged as an old man. To represent that I felt he should only have one attack - slowing down in old age, but higher skills. Unfortunately the system doesn't really let you do that, starting PCs are all much of a muchness, they are all assumed to be youths. Also +1 attack is amazingly amazing in Warhammer, much better than any other increase, so I ended up gimping myself.

I had a similar problem with a super-sniper superhero, using the d20 version of Silver Age Sentinels. Sniper, to me, suggested a slow, but very accurate and deadly, style of attack. However, again taking extra attacks makes your char much better for a very low cost. I compromised and took one extra attack. But I felt dirty.

With more freeform systems, such as HERO and many other superhero systems, GURPS and the like, one feels more pressure to make the numbers fit the character. In class-based systems such as D&D it's perhaps more acceptable for mechanically identical 1st level fighters to be very different things.

However my approach to D&D has been to assume that characters are quite limited things. A 1st level fighter, to me, does indicate a guy with some training and/or fighting experience. After all there are 0th level humans or commoners to represent turnip farmers. 4e is actually trickier because it takes care to say nothing about the wider world. However again my interpretation, and this is a personal one not required by the rules, is that most people are 1st level minions, which makes all 1st level PCs extremely capable. Otoh there is more of an abstract feel to 4e. Perhaps that capability is inherent awesome rather than learned. And one could say the same in 1e or 3e, that the 1st level fighter's awesome is natural talent.

 

[Umbran]

Nope.

Actually yes, humans do stink at multitasking. Rather than do real multitasking (processing two things in parallel), for conscious thought we instead do context switching, which is not the same thing. And we still aren't very good at it. Performance degrades remarkably when we try - especially among those who think they are good at multitasking.

I'll see if I can dig up references to the studies when I get home.