Do you like character building?

[rogueattorney]

I don't need to piss all over the guy with the construction paper sword OR the guy with the $100 dollar costume to have fun with it. And I certainly don't need to feel superior to either of them. Heck, in a lot of games, all 3 of us could sit down and play together if we can avoid being purists or jerks about the whole thing.

There's our big disagreement. I don't think there are a lot of games where "construction paper guy" and "fancy costume guy" are both going to be happy. "Construction paper guy" is going to be frustrated and bored with something like 3e and "fancy costume guy" is going to be frustrated and bored with something like OD&D.

And I don't mean to discount the fact that some people are "construction paper guy" on one day and "fancy costume guy" the next. But when that happens, one game will do the job better on day one, and a different game will do the job better on day two.

I mean, you understand why 3e might not be the ideal system for someone who doesn't like spending time building a character, right? Just like I understand why Tunnels & Trolls isn't an ideal system for someone who wants character background details to be born out in the mechanics.

 

[Umbran]

Why do you persist in such behavior?

Why do you persist in pursuing an argument with someone who has stated an intent to step away and avoid conflict? Doing so to call out others on persisting in less-than-stellar behavior seems rather ironic.

How about you be sportsmanlike and allow it to drop when that's the other's stated intention, hm? Thanks.

 

[Ariosto]

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"

I am talking, in a way, about your slams against people who do like "to add a +1 to different things", just not by playing the zero-sum game.

The actual choice is not between having the game of builds and having "a character with little diversity". The actual choice is between having the game of builds or not having the game of builds.

You keep posing the false dichotomy of either having that whole second game or not having arbitrarily complex lists of mechanical details.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

There's our big disagreement. I don't think there are a lot of games where "construction paper guy" and "fancy costume guy" are both going to be happy. "Construction paper guy" is going to be frustrated and bored with something like 3e and "fancy costume guy" is going to be frustrated and bored with something like OD&D.

And I don't mean to discount the fact that some people are "construction paper guy" on one day and "fancy costume guy" the next. But when that happens, one game will do the job better on day one, and a different game will do the job better on day two.

I mean, you understand why 3e might not be the ideal system for someone who doesn't like spending time building a character, right? Just like I understand why Tunnels & Trolls isn't an ideal system for someone who wants character background details to be born out in the mechanics.

Sure, but at the end of the day I still think "construction paper guy" and "fancy costume guy" are caricatures. At least, I've never met them in real life.

A continuum exists, with those as the theoretical endpoints, and I've certainly met people on the internet who claim to be at those endpoints. But when I actually game with people, I see something that looks more like a 55/45 or 65/35 split. Maybe 80/20 in an extreme case.

Sure, the 80/20 guy is going to be more comfortable in either 3e or T&T, if those are his options. But IME there's a lot more wiggle room than your binary proposition suggested.

And that wiggle room extends to the games, too. I've seen 3e played very "beer & pretzels with a side of theater" and I've seen older versions of D&D (I never played T&T) played with a wargame level of crunchiness.

And, frankly, the more games embrace computers the better. When you have a program along the lines of the 4e Character builder (or better yet, a character builder like the CRPG Dragon Age), there's a lot more room for the more extreme people at the same table. The nitty gritty guy can pick and choose mechanics while the guy who doesn't want to spend time sets a theme and clicks "Auto-pick." I know gaming groups that have basically operated that way since 3e came out, with the DM acting as the character builder.

 

[GregChristopher]

I think there is a distinction to be drawn here between characters that are detailed in terms of mechanical powers and those that are detailed in terms of personality.

You can have a 3e D&D character that is 2 pages long and has tons of ink on the page, but if you gave it to someone else they might have no idea what that character is actually like to be around.

Alternatively, in a game like mine, you can give someone the character sheet and they can really see how that person's mind works. Big difference.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think there is a distinction to be drawn here between characters that are detailed in terms of mechanical powers and those that are detailed in terms of personality.

You can have a 3e D&D character that is 2 pages long and has tons of ink on the page, but if you gave it to someone else they might have no idea what that character is actually like to be around.

Alternatively, in a game like mine, you can give someone the character sheet and they can really see how that person's mind works. Big difference.

I agree and disagree with this.

Generally speaking, I try to use a game's mechanics to reflect the PC concept I have in my head. However, but for a few RPGs* or a rare few PC builds**, all that actually ends up on the page is the mechanics themselves: the sheet won't tell anyone how to play the PC. Were I to give you one of my PCs to play, you'd probably play it quite differently from me...unless you picked up on the underlying theme.

* HERO is one possible exception I can think of, M&M might be another.

** Adragon van Basten and Hellbox would probably play pretty much the same in anybody's hands because each is just oddball enough.