Do you like character building?

[Psion]

Build is actually crpg terminology, especially in games like WoW. Somehow it got carried over to pen and paper rpgs from people who played both.

I've heard of builds in this context (and in the "pre-planned character design in D&D" context.) It's easy to see how one can leap to building from there, but that word was already being used.

Personally I'd like to keep it out of pen and paper rpgs, because of that distinction.

Along with toons.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Maybe you personally don't, but that laissez faire attitude is -- pretty sensibly -- not par for the course among people who want to play a game of builds.

It is pretty much the point of the affair that everyone spends $30 each. In game terms, maybe that means you have ST 10, DX 10, IQ 10: a thoroughly average specimen. (PCs normally start with 32 points.) The guy who chose to have $100 might have ST 50, DX 20, IQ 30: a demigod! The equivalent of a "paper sword" in TFT might be ...

"Birdie? Birdie. Birdie!"


(from herogames.com forums, thread How to Build: Blowing Up Prootwaddles, or Character Self-Destruction).

My metaphor was more about the time and energy investment in character creation. The example expressed a binary situation wherein players and games come in one of two types.

Some people just want to get into character (construction paper sword guy), and some games serve that. Some people just want to play with all the fiddly bits ($100 costume guy), and some games serve that. Aside from the sheer audacity of expressing that as a binary rather than continuum, Rogueattorney's original example also conflated the heck out of "build" and roleplaying. His construction paper sword guy is clearly the hero of his analogy, getting into the spirit of the character, while the guy with the $100 costume was obsessed with the mechanical trappings of the character.

Again, this is a false dichotomy. Most people can switch back and forth or fall somewhere in the middle. My expensive hat guy was meant to more realistically split the difference: some interest in fiddly bits, some capacity to jump in with a character. Heck, for me, having some mechanical variance helps me figure out who my characters are, enabling better characters on multiple axes.

It's related to the argument that I think I keep having with you. While repeatedly telling us that some of your best friends are "build" games, you also say that "build" games hinder certain kinds of creativity. Those two things are entirely distinct. Two separate axes that are not correlated in my experience. The same cats who make interesting, flavorful characters in "build" games make interesting, flavorful characters in less fiddly games. People who don't.... don't.

"Build" games endeavor to prevent you from making a character that is unfairly powerful, because the social contract of most of these games implies a shared spotlight. So, a "build" game doesn't want Superman and Jimmy Olsen in the same party, unless it includes a plot mechanism to level the playing field somehow. Outside of an assumption of relative power level, they don't tend to curb stomp your imagination in the way that some people frequently imply.

 

[Ariosto]

While repeatedly telling us that some of your best friends are "build" games, you also say that "build" games hinder certain kinds of creativity.

What I actually wrote is that a game of building with 30 points conventionally does not allow you to spend 100 points instead.

I do not think anyone is disputing this but you, and your supposed argument comes down to repeating "Is not!".

 

[Ariosto]

"Build" games endeavor to prevent you from making a character that is unfairly powerful, because the social contract of most of these games implies a shared spotlight. So, a "build" game doesn't want Superman and Jimmy Olsen in the same party, unless it includes a plot mechanism to level the playing field somehow.

Those are the facts of the matter.

Outside of an assumption of relative power level, they don't tend to curb stomp your imagination in the way that some people frequently imply.

That is your opinion of people who happen to prefer, at least sometimes, to make characters without the zero-sum game that is so dear to you.

Yeah, some people like to play D&D, or T&T, or RuneQuest, or Traveller. It's been that way for more than 30 years.

 

[BryonD]

just because I want detail in chargen DOES NOT mean I want to "build" (meaning optimize) my character for success like I would a MtG deck.

Amen to this.

If someone wants to just min/max powergame, then more power to them.

But, to me, "optimized" should be a reference to how closely the mechanics model the concept, and has nothing to do with "pwerz". Unfortunately, my preferred context seems to never apply.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Those are the facts of the matter.
That is your opinion of people who happen to prefer, at least sometimes, to make characters without the zero-sum game that is so dear to you.

Where, exactly, did you get that idea?

I think I'm finally beginning to understand our inability to communicate, but I'm not even sure where to start unpacking that. The zero-sum thing is even more ridiculous than assuming that a specific type of system is "dear" to me. One of the greatest strengths of RPGs is how non-zero-sum they are. When I want a zero-sum game with the same relative trappings, I'll play Magic or a straight up wargame.

I think I need to actually walk away this time, as I don't think we're speaking the same language, and I'd rather avoid needless conflict. Good gaming.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But, to me, "optimized" should be a reference to how closely the mechanics model the concept, and has nothing to do with "pwerz". Unfortunately, my preferred context seems to never apply.

I'm with you 100% on that.

 

[Ariosto]

The zero-sum thing is even more ridiculous than assuming that a specific type of system is "dear" to me.

How is it ridiculous? You never get around to offering an ounce of evidence or logic, to treating the facts presented. You just make these sweeping claims with no visible support at all!

Why do you persist in such behavior? What other warrant have you given for your repeated attacks other than the claim that they are counter-attacks in defense of this very thing you now say is not dear to you?

In game theory and economic theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Zero-sum can be thought of more generally as constant sum where the benefits and losses to all players sum to the same value of money (or utility). Cutting a cake is zero- or constant-sum, because taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others. In contrast, non-zero-sum describes a situation in which the interacting parties' aggregate gains and losses is either less than or more than zero.

However the terminology may be applied in your circle, this is precisely the way a "game of builds" works -- or is supposed to work -- in the relevant context that is what I am writing about.

 

[Ariosto]

The Zero Sum:
Strictly speaking, what in practice actually balance are the individual's advantages and disadvantages versus an arbitrary base line. Also, the sum of those sums of advantages and disadvantages (which are individually zero) naturally comes to zero, regardless of the number of players.

There is (usually) no actual prohibition of one player having something that matches and thereby "cancels" another player's advantage. However, were that to occur perfectly -- or even beyond some lesser extent depending on personal taste -- then we would be right back to the "sameness" of characters in such games as old D&D.

There is only so much "specialness" to go around.

When every character is simply assumed to be able to ride a horse, or can learn to ride a horse and to do any number of other things as well, there is no great "specialness" in being able to ride a horse.

When every player has a sufficiency of such game-mechanical "possessions", what is important is not what one has but what one does. Deeds in what we old-timers call "actual play" are the fount of specialness.

Where random initial states can be unequal within bounds, inequality in outcomes can be even greater. In a game that permits wide-open improvement, even the initially widely superior and inferior can trade places.

In RuneQuest, for instance, there are no "levels", much less "skill" (or other) allotments by level, much less a Harrison Bergeron system keeping everyone in The Party equal. A noble whose player squanders opportunities and also has bad luck can fall behind both in field experience and in training. A peasant whose player plays with skill and also has good luck can become more expert in the noble's chosen specialty skills and more, learning more spells and more powerful ones, binding spirits and acquiring enchanted items, and attaining to the rank of Rune Lord ahead of the noble (who may instead perish far short of the goal).

Even without "skill ratings" over which to compete, the situation in old D&D is essentially the same. There is no guarantee of equality of initial state (in terms of "stats" from ability scores to hit points to money) among characters, much less of equality in their outcomes.

There is a rough parity of opportunity among players, of choices to make and chances to roll.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

What in god's name are you talking about and how is it in any way related to "Yes I like to add a +1 to different things or choose options when I level my character" or "No I want to make a character with little diversity right at the start and be on my way"