Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 5291750" data-attributes="member: 172">Building a character is making a character, no? The word build seems to have a second context here which I don't think is universal. Nor do I think your condemnation or unfair conclusion of certain games is accurate: just because I want detail in chargen DOES NOT mean I want to &quot;build&quot; (meaning optimize) my character for success like I would a MtG deck.I like making characters, and I like systems with detailed character designs and interesting options, and refute the notion that such is about see a character in a mechanical/gamist-optimizing context. I see it in the context that the character has interesting capabilities and ways of interacting with the setting. Ideally, I see this as only part of the process; to completely &quot;build&quot; a character, a player should also have a handle on aspects that don't relate directly to character survival.Now, I will say that I see the role of character creation in a rather traditional sense and I don't buy in to the philosophy that a character's &quot;treasure&quot; or &quot;magic items&quot; are part of the build. Unfortunately, I can relate that back to an unfortunate passage in a 3e book, which I condemn.AFAIAC, a character should formed not just by player images, but by his or her evolving role in the game. Whatever material advantage the character has may be due to happenstance, opportunity, and wiles. But it should not, IMO, be due to plotting out a path for the character to acheive some mechanical result, like &quot;if I the sword of x and bracers of y, and have spell z from this other supplement, I can push the win button!&quot; When that happens, AFAIAC, you have lost sight of what the game is really about.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psion, post: 5291750, member: 172"] [I]Building [/I]a character is making a character, no? The word build seems to have a second context here which I don't think is universal. Nor do I think your condemnation or unfair conclusion of certain games is accurate: 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. I like making characters, and I like systems with detailed character designs and interesting options, and refute the notion that such is about see a character in a mechanical/gamist-optimizing context. I see it in the context that the character has interesting capabilities and ways of interacting with the setting. Ideally, I see this as only part of the process; to completely "build" a character, a player should also have a handle on aspects that don't relate directly to character survival. Now, I will say that I see the role of character creation in a rather traditional sense and I don't buy in to the philosophy that a character's "treasure" or "magic items" are part of the build. Unfortunately, I can relate that back to an unfortunate passage in a 3e book, which I condemn. AFAIAC, a character should formed not just by player images, but by his or her evolving role in the game. Whatever material advantage the character has may be due to happenstance, opportunity, and wiles. But it should not, IMO, be due to plotting out a path for the character to acheive some mechanical result, like "if I the sword of x and bracers of y, and have spell z from this other supplement, I can push the win button!" When that happens, AFAIAC, you have lost sight of what the game is really about. [/QUOTE]

Verification