Do you like character building?

[Ariosto]

I suspect that both 3e and 4e lack Officially Official Rules for a great many things covered in F.A.T.A.L..

Its creators and fans are rather fond of pointing out the obvious superiority of their more rules-laden system.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

ProfessorCirno, while I agree with much of what you said, humans actually are really, really bad at multitasking. Conservative estimates from recent data would suggest that you get 30-40% slower on each task if you are doing two things at once, for example, and if both of those tasks require retention of information, it's a disaster in terms of outcomes, as well. We don't actually do two or more things at once. We switch tracks repeatedly, and we lose speed and retention every time we do it.

(EDIT: I'm working from memory on such numbers as I presented, but I think those are in the ballpark. If Umbran does search out citations, I'll happily edit again. I forgot the bonus irony points for the fact that people who think they are good multitaskers are actually among the worst.)

That said, I don't think the activity in question is a case of multitasking. If you're getting a multitasking effect, you're using different task dynamics than I am. I don't define dealing with the mechanics of my character and dealing with the personality of the character as separate things, because the one is always servicing the other. They're continuous with each other. I'm rolling to hit a pack of minions with a Scorching Burst because my squishy low level wizard character is desperately concerned about that pack of guards bearing down on him and Scorching Burst certainly felt like the thing to do given the situation. The whole thing is rather sordid, and he had no intention if getting caught up in the messy business, he'd really rather keep his blood on the inside, thanks.

I can't actually conceive of playing in a way where the mechanics are distinct enough from the character to cause track switching, but I do think it might be an effect for some people. After all, there's a HUGE variance in how long different groups of otherwise similar people take with by-the-book combats in 4e, and something must be causing that large a disparity.

 

[Ariosto]

The difference is that in 3e or 4e you can actually show your character was a turnip farmer, rather then say "Despite being completely identical to the heroic and brave warlord's son I just had, here's a brand new character who farmed turnips."

That is false. The difference is that we don't need to deal with obstacles to doing so.

The difference is that in old D&D, the game is not about acquiring paperwork to prove former turnip-farming status.

Bureaucracy games and turnip-farming games can be fun. Some of us sometimes like to play instead a classic adventure game called "D&D", though.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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

Sure, yes. Gary thought of the D&D rules as suggestions, to be modified, subtracted from, added to, at each table to suit taste. Though that's more true of OD&D than AD&D, which was intended, to some extent, to reduce deviations from the 'D&D norm', such as Monty Haul-ism.

But otoh there was always this strand in D&D of people who wanted definitive official rules, who didn't want to houserule at all. Sage Advice. 'Official Rules for your D&D game'. The 'Skip Williams' tendency.

I've been rpging for just under thirty years, with hundreds of different people. Imx houseruling is rare. The gamers I know don't like to do it. And when they try, they are quite bad at it. They're not gearheads, they're *much* better at fluff than crunch. It's only in the last few years that I've been starting to houserule in any kind of major way, and I don't really enjoy it. I myself am also better at fluff.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Since this comes from personal experience, it's anecdotal evidence only, but character building is the very thing that got me fed up with the d20 System. Instead of actually playing their characters -- banter, in-character speech, planning what they wanted their characters to actually do in the game-world -- table-talk whenever I DM'd a 3e game always had the players banging on about what feats and class levels they'd be taking when they racked up enough XP to ding. I just got sick of it.

Now I use the Basic Set and the Rules Cyclopedia. And in between the stretches of dungeon or wilderness exploration plus the odd combat encounter (which are, by the book, short and sparse, thank goodness), the table-talk is all about how cool the character's strongholds and armies will be when they finally reach name level, or how they'll spend their treasure on this or that scheme -- you know, stuff that actually means something in the game universe. It promotes in-character thought, discussion, and action rather than out-of-character meta-gaming.

So, yes, it really is a dichotomy. There's only so much brainpower (possibly a finite resource) and time at the game table (definitely a finite resource) to go around. I like to see it spent on role-playing rather than on planning how to stack building-blocks to get the highest possible tower of numerical advantages. In my experience, you just can't have it both ways.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

The problem is the game often sets it up as an either-or. Imagine that your character is some sort of 4-armed race. You start out at normal PC age, you've trained all your life to be an awesome fighter with all 4 arms, yet the game says that you are bad at that until you take your feats.

The game says "you're not a fighter until you start training as one" so unless you're starting as upper level players, every PC is just "joe blue" or "jane smith" until that first session. The game says you're really not that skilled and you're not that good at everything you do.

So yes, often character creation, the act of defining who and what you are, is at odds with the game. 4e has only a finite amount of options available for the PC to play as, even 3.x has IMO, many more, but the options are finite.

Defining your character within the game boundaries often presents an either-or situation. So no, I don't think there's anything wrong with how he's conceptualizing it because I do think that most games really do divide "concept" from "content".

 

[ProfessorCirno]

That is false. The difference is that we don't need to deal with obstacles to doing so.

The difference is that in old D&D, the game is not about acquiring paperwork to prove former turnip-farming status.

Bureaucracy games and turnip-farming games can be fun. Some of us sometimes like to play instead a classic adventure game called "D&D", though.

You aren't saying anything. You are literally just typing out words that are meaningless.

That said, I don't think the activity in question is a case of multitasking.

That's what I meant with my "Nope" for what it's worth

 

[Ariosto]

But otoh there was always this strand in D&D of people who wanted definitive official rules, who didn't want to houserule at all.

Look around. There are a lot of "definitive official rules" sets out there! Your favorite zero-sum game is very far from being the only thing that is not old D&D!

Yes, there is the rub. There are many mutually incompatible ways to dislike old D&D ... or T&T, or C&S, or TFT, or RuneQuest, or Dragonquest, or Dragon Warriors, or Palladium, or Rolemaster, or Warhammer, or Powers & Perils, or Lords of Creation, or GURPS Fantasy, or Fantasy HERO, or Earthdawn, or Barbarians of Lemuria, or In a Wicked Age ... or any other FRP production.

What is "wrong" for you is "right" for someone else. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, some of us even like more than one kind of game.

So, it is an endless war among those who insist that D&D must -- Really Officially -- be something other than what it is. The closer it gets to Exalted, the further it gets from Hârnmaster. Neither of those will quite please the fellow who is after Over The Edge or Everway, or the one whose heart is set on Ars Magica or King Arthur Pendragon or Kung Fu CB Mamas On Wheels Versus The Aztec Wrestling Nuns.

 

[Dausuul]

Kung Fu CB Mamas On Wheels Versus The Aztec Wrestling Nuns.

I must have this game.

 

[Ariosto]

I must have this game.

There's a character sheet in the Murphy's Rules compilation (of cartoons from The Space Gamer) published by Steve Jackson Games some years ago.

As far as I know, that's all there is to it, though.