Optimizers, oh my!

[MichaelSomething]

If I ever find myself in a 3.5 party full of weak melee characters, I'll just play a Bard. Even the weakest Monk is useful if you give him +4 to attack and damage rolls starting at level 3.

 

[CroBob]

I figure I'll simply go Druid. If I find a group too stubborn to play 4E I'm gonna druid all over the place, and I won't even use anything outside of Core to do it. But seriously, as long as everyone's having fun, then whatever. I don't think a game is actually a good game if you need to ignore the inequality inherent to it in order to have fun, though.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes. In fact, I'd say that besides being arguably the most fun part of the game, it's also the part that involves the most skill.

I see this as a bug rather than a feature. If character generation involves that much "skill" the system has become too complex for its own good, and needs to be harshly toned down.

Lanefan

 

[Sunseeker]

I see this as a bug rather than a feature. If character generation involves that much "skill" the system has become too complex for its own good, and needs to be harshly toned down.

Lanefan

I agree that character-building should not require the most skill. But it should certainly require enough skill through providing a diversity of options(even if simple choices) to allow players to differentiate their characters and playstyles.

 

[delericho]

I agree that character-building should not require the most skill. But it should certainly require enough skill through providing a diversity of options(even if simple choices) to allow players to differentiate their characters and playstyles.

Broadly I agree. I do think, though, that the game should make it as hard as possible both to create a truly woeful character and, equally, a game-breakingly good one.

In 3e, for example, if a Fighter makes the wrong feat choices, he will suck irredeemably. However, this could be fixed (or at least reduced) had the game silo'ed the 'class' feats the Fighter got into some "important powers" grouping, and then left the standard feats that everyone gets as a set of largely-irrelevant customisations.

At the other end of the scale, while it's probably not possible for 3e to avoid super-characters (due to the wealth of options), creating such a character should be a bit more involved than "play a druid".

(And, yes, I exaggerate for effect.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I see this as a bug rather than a feature. If character generation involves that much "skill" the system has become too complex for its own good, and needs to be harshly toned down.

Character creation is typically done once per campaign and outside of the limited session time the group gets together. The character creation process typically describes a larger portion of the character's lifespan than his entire gameplay existence. For me, character creation is the part where I constantly want to spend more time. Where rules complexity is a problem is when it slows down the actual game. Movement, resource management, equipment...those are the things that can waste my time as a DM and the things which I try to simplify.

Don't get me wrong. I can see the impetus for wanting to be able to create a character quickly, especially from a DM perspective. But for me, being able to spend a lot of time describing my character is one of the best parts of the game, and having at least the option to go in-depth is essential.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes. In fact, I'd say that besides being arguably the most fun part of the game, it's also the part that involves the most skill.

I'm with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] here - this is a bug and not a feature. I can create characters for whatever purpose with the best of them in either 3.X or 4e (I'm actually slightly better at 3.X because I have no real knowledge of 4e Epic). On the other hand if picking from a list of predetermined options in an ultimately static situation (which is what the mechanical part of chargen is) is both easier and more fun than dealing with situations going completely out of control, the combined imaginations of all the table working together and pitching in to create more vivid and intense sitautions, and to rescue near-catastrophies, I wonder why you play at all rather than just sit round with friends having drinks and making Monty Python references.

Well, I do think the other players and the DM should be helping, but I think that building a PC is naturally an involved process where things can either go very right or very wrong. It's the time when you have the widest spectrum of choices. It's the time when you actually read and use the rulebooks.

Again, I don't understand this attitude at all. If someone goes very wrong, they are going to be paying for their "mistake" (like writing the word Monk on the top of their character sheet in 3.X) for months. This is not a good thing. As for "the widest spectrum of choices", when I want to write solo fiction I write. When I want to play with spreadsheets I go to work. And the choices here are digital - when designing a character in 3e or 4e it's "Pick 1 from each available option" (other than the 3.X fiddly system which is "pick n"). Pick one race. Pick one class-level. Pick one feat... Or a full-on build. Rather than "Go exploring and try to outsmart a set of foes who are actually adapting".

It's generally the time when you have the most freedom to go off the book.

Could you unpack please?

If anything, I think that players learn to express their characters during play, and that it should be easier to do that, which is the problem with metagame mechanics. Asking a player to track how many uses of something they have or understand tactical positioning on a battlegrid is counterproductive unless the character would also have to understand those things; a player who has built (perhaps with aid) a good fighter, should simply be able to describe a logical course of actions (I attack) and achieve the desired result.

A good fighter should understand tactical positioning. He is a fighter - fighting is what he is best at. And tactical positioning is a very important part of fighting. A wizard or cleric, possibly not so much. If he doesn't get tactical positioning he either isn't a good fighter or needs something to make up for it - like going beserk.

Character creation is typically done once per campaign and outside of the limited session time the group gets together. The character creation process typically describes a larger portion of the character's lifespan than his entire gameplay existence. For me, character creation is the part where I constantly want to spend more time.

You are on the extreme end of time you want to spend on just about everything from what I can tell.

Don't get me wrong. I can see the impetus for wanting to be able to create a character quickly, especially from a DM perspective. But for me, being able to spend a lot of time describing my character is one of the best parts of the game, and having at least the option to go in-depth is essential.

The issue here is that no one should ever be lapped before they have crossed the start line. You can't avoid a system with meaningful choices having some people start higher up on the grid than others whatever you do - but skill in play should count for more than skill character building. Building your character shouldn't be "the part that involves the most skill".

 

[Ahnehnois]

]You are on the extreme end of time you want to spend on just about everything from what I can tell.

Relative to your rather unusual and idiosyncratic perspective on gaming, I can see where it would appear that way.

The bottom line is I want to do the most story in the least amount of time possible. That means doing as much as possible to make a session flow quicker. I want to spend a lot of time on making a character a good fighter once, and then just be able to quickly say "my character attacks" a few times and resolve each battle in a few minutes so I can move the session forward without fiddling around with the details.

If an in-game battle takes less than a minute, I don't want to spend half an hour moving pieces on a board to keep track of each 5 ft of distance, or play some intricate little subgame of determining how many spells of each level I have left and which ones are worth it to use (which is why I use spell points). I want the numbers that I already spent the time generating to show me who should win, and for that to play out as quickly as possible with a few dice rolls and key tactical choices, without dragging down the game.

As with most things in life, health, finance, and gaming all reward good preparation. A little time spent now saves a lot later.

 

[nijineko]

to paraphrase a chess master, "people who are not capable of playing a complex tactical and strategic game will remove pieces from the game until it is simplified to a level that they are capable of."

personally, i've been playing for over 25 years. on one hand, i love the options and possibilities that 3.x gives me. on the other hand, i dread making a new character because i'm personally slow at the r&d that allows me to review all the options and pick my path. it also doesn't help that i usually plan out anywhere from 5 to 20 levels in advance depending on how long i expect to play, or if i like the concept enough to reuse it later.

on one hand, i get mildly irked when the rules don't allow for certain character concepts, and again if i have to take a plethora of levels and unrelated abilities just to qualify for a specific feature i wanted. on the other hand, i love it when i manage to tweak the rules into a pretzel shape and make them cough up my design concept... even if it does wind up 7+ levels behind in overall effectiveness.

as a result, i am one of the worst rule-twisting, word bending, min-maxer you will meet. however, i use my constructions to make characters that meet a specific design and/or character idea or concept that just isn't well supported in the rules, and usually wind up behind a character who stuck it out with a single class. ^^

and most important of all. set the rules before hand. if everyone agrees, then that's how you play. if you can't agree, or won't agree, then don't play with that mix. it's people who break gameplay, not the game, or the rules. (poorly written, perhaps, granted.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Relative to your rather unusual and idiosyncratic perspective on gaming, I can see where it would appear that way.

Can I ask on which points you consider my perspective to be unusual and idiosyncratic?

The bottom line is I want to do the most story in the least amount of time possible. That means doing as much as possible to make a session flow quicker. I want to spend a lot of time on making a character a good fighter once, and then just be able to quickly say "my character attacks" a few times and resolve each battle in a few minutes so I can move the session forward without fiddling around with the details.

If I wanted the fastest story possible I wouldn't touch D&D with a ten foot barge pole. As systems go it's pretty heavy. I value quality rather than length - if my character is a fighter then fighting is a big part of what he does I want the way he fights to reflect that and there to be things on the line. I want the fight scene to be meaningful - for how see John Rogers on writing action scenes - 4e provides this with the tactics and the powers, or a game that encourages more narrative like Dogs in the Vineyard, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, or even Wushu works but in a very differernt way. Alternatively I want something close to the Tunnels and Trolls model (I believe Dungeon World also qualifies) where you have a fairly simple roll-off to cover the lot.

If an in-game battle takes less than a minute,

I simply don't see length of time as a meaningful metric. The metric that's meaningful to the story is not so much the in game length of time as the stakes involved. I have no problem spending an hour on a minute's worth of nailbiting combat where there is an at least apparently significant chance of death or failure. On the other hand I'd have a serious problem spending a minute on the five minutes it takes my character to take a dump (unless something incredibly unusual happens). And "filler combats" are just irritating.

or play some intricate little subgame of determining how many spells of each level I have left

This is even worse - that the wizard has more meaningful options than the fighter at the area the fighter is meant to specialise in.

I want the numbers that I already spent the time generating to show me who should win

And that's almost the opposite of what I want. I want choice at the point of impact to be meaningful. Which makes the numbers already generated only one factor rather than something that almost predetermines the outcome.