Do people in your games actually use "builds"

[Sunseeker]

There's not a whole lot of effective character-build pre-planning one could do for my Deadlands game.

There really isn't a lot of "planning" to Deadlands on the player side at all. It's one thing I love about it, stuff just hits the fans and bullets and crazy magic go flying.

I'm playing a Star Wars SE game, and one of the players is definitely following a build. Interestingly, she's the one who takes longest to level up - you'd figure if she knew teh build, she'd have it worked out in advance, but no, she has to work over her character sheet and discuss matters for an hour before the session begins at level-up time.

I've seen it before, following a build and knowing your build are two totally different things. I remember the design for my character a while back, I "built" it myself pre-game all the way to 20 to ensure that it was effective at most levels. But I've seen people just download builds and then still be confused as heck about them.

Even if you're using a pre-generated build, it's nice to analyze it at every step to ensure you understand the changes that have happened. I'd hope that when she plays she knows what she's doing after taking so much time to analyze. I'd say if she plays well at the table, then her time was well spent.

 

[haakon1]

I don't generally see people use 'builds', no. Organic character development seems far more common.

Same here. I have 12 players in two campaigns. Two of them think in "buildy" ways, the others do not.

I don't see correlation, positive or negative, between "buildy" attitude and roleplaying. One of the "buildly" players is towards the low end of role play. The other is among my "best" role players -- but his build isn't optimized for combat, it's optimized for the character it amuses him to play, which is a monk who resembles a medieval European monk (sage and brewer) rather than just the Shao Lin stuff.

 

[Umbran]

I have my "build" for a Dwarven Starlock/Psion (MC) planned out to the end of Paragon...ish. Even though I know the destination, I can see dozens of paths to get there, so each leveling that offers me meaningful options takes me time.

Well, this player has each class level, feat and talent planned out in advance to reach some very specific goals of being able to use specific kinds of weapons in specific ways. Though it seems she really feels she needs to follow this build, she apparently cannot do something so stunningly efficient as, say, writing it down for reference, or going through the leveling up process between sessions like everyone else.

I have some other playstyle-friction issues with this player, though, so maybe I'm not the most objective in describing her behavior.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, this player has each class level, feat and talent planned out in advance to reach some very specific goals of being able to use specific kinds of weapons in specific ways

So do I! I could post my Notes files (yes, plural- the character sheet, the workbook, the other workbook, and some random notes) on the stuff going on with this PC.

That doesn't stop me from reconsidering things at each step, though. This is because things happen in the campaign to change the PC...and, of course, new books get released.

 

[blargney the second]

Assuming the goal is to make a good character, 'good' is a moving target.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Assuming the goal is to make a good character, 'good' is a moving target.

In my case, it's me trying to divine the psychology of a fictional character- what would HE/SHE/IT choose?

So for me, it has nothing to do with "good"...

 

[blargney the second]

In my case, it's me trying to divine the psychology of a fictional character- what would HE/SHE/IT choose?

So for me, it has nothing to do with "good"...

That's exactly my point. At this point in time, your personal definition of 'good character' appears to be approximately analogous to a good literary character. (ie Has clear motivations and a distinct personality.) That's cool. However, your tastes can also change over time
Hence the moving target.

There are also external factors that make 'good' dynamically changing. If your campaign takes a twist you never expected, you will need to adapt. That can be either a numbers thing or a personality thing. Or even both.

 

[Fenes]

I let my players change their characters as they see fit, retroactively changing classes and feats and stats. As long as the character's "feel" doesn't change too drastically it's all good.

 

[Dark Mistress]

For me I tend to just develop by what happens. Most of the guys I game with are both, they come up with a build idea. But if things happen during the adventure they will select other things that makes sense and when there is no outside influence they go back to their build. But their builds tend to be more. I want a really tough fighter so just takes defensive and hp boost feats.

 

[Umbran]

That doesn't stop me from reconsidering things at each step, though. This is because things happen in the campaign to change the PC...and, of course, new books get released.

Reconsidering is fine. Exploring new ideas is fine. That's not what this player is doing. She's using session time to reconstruct the original plan because she cannot be bothered to write it down. We're only sixth level, and already once she's had to ask for retroactive changes because she screwed up the process and wandered off the plan.