Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Runestar" data-source="post: 4399200" data-attributes="member: 72317">What is wrong with the cookie cutter build example? I mean, just because say, 1000 other people have already tried the same build before you should not dilute your own enjoyment of the build, since it would be the first time you are trying out the character concept for yourself, so it should still be a novel gaming experience for most part. It is not as though you are playing the same character for the second or umpteenth time or something. Likewise, in all my time on gleemax, I have never seen a case of people just blindly copying a build off the CO boards to play in their campaign. More often than not, special provisions have to be made for various extenuating factors, such as the player in question not owning a particular splatbook, his DM not allowing certain material or choosing to interpret a key rule in a manner not in the favour of said build, or the existing build simply not being to the player's liking. The end result is typically a build which follows the core underlying fundamental principles/concepts of the original build, but is rarely ever just another carbon copy. It can, in fact, suffice in passing off as its own build in its own right.Or at times, the request is to help with designing a unique character concept which has not yet been covered (such as the aforementioned werebear/succubus offspring PC). In such cases, the advice and insight offered by peers as knowledgable, if not more than you can only be a boon.Is this &quot;cookie-cutter copycat&quot; syndrone actually evidenced anywhere, or just a another fallacy aimed at sullying optimization's good name? Because as mentioned above, I have never seen anything like it!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Runestar, post: 4399200, member: 72317"] What is wrong with the cookie cutter build example? I mean, just because say, 1000 other people have already tried the same build before you should not dilute your own enjoyment of the build, since it would be the first time you are trying out the character concept for yourself, so it should still be a novel gaming experience for most part. It is not as though you are playing the same character for the second or umpteenth time or something. Likewise, in all my time on gleemax, I have never seen a case of people just blindly copying a build off the CO boards to play in their campaign. More often than not, special provisions have to be made for various extenuating factors, such as the player in question not owning a particular splatbook, his DM not allowing certain material or choosing to interpret a key rule in a manner not in the favour of said build, or the existing build simply not being to the player's liking. The end result is typically a build which follows the core underlying fundamental principles/concepts of the original build, but is rarely ever just another carbon copy. It can, in fact, suffice in passing off as its own build in its own right. Or at times, the request is to help with designing a unique character concept which has not yet been covered (such as the aforementioned werebear/succubus offspring PC). In such cases, the advice and insight offered by peers as knowledgable, if not more than you can only be a boon. Is this "cookie-cutter copycat" syndrone actually evidenced anywhere, or just a another fallacy aimed at sullying optimization's good name? Because as mentioned above, I have never seen anything like it! [/QUOTE]

Verification