The Essentials articles are atrocious.

[Nightson]

ok, is this a magic the gathering thing...or a movie thing?? eaither way I missed my know: geek DC

Timmy, Johnny, and Spike Revisited : Daily MTG : Magic: The Gathering

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Quite frankly, from how this reads?

In this thread, people who have never read a single handbook complain about them.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Please...no more Magic: the Gathering talk. <shudder>

I'll agree to anything you want, just make it stop.

 

[Garthanos]

Quite frankly, from how this reads?

In this thread, people who have never read a single handbook complain about them.

Lots of guilt by association going on.. some threads on them boards give me a queasy stomach (but the handbooks rock - ok usually)

 

[kaomera]

Quite frankly, from how this reads?

In this thread, people who have never read a single handbook complain about them.

I'd be a bit more generous and suggest that maybe they read them, but only after they had a negative opinion of the CharOp boards, and everything therein. Some posters seem to be very touchy about the idea that you might not follow their advice 100%, for whatever reason.

IMO: If taken simply as (optimization-slanted) advice the Handbooks are excellent material, marred (for me) only by being hard to read (due to the board revamp) and not at all colour-blind-friendly. If you want or expect the Handbooks to build your character for you... Well, they mostly will, and it will be both optimized (for certain values of optimized) and cookie-cutter.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

It's a Magic thing describing player archetypes.

Spike likes to win.
Timmy likes big creatures and big effects.
Johnny likes making weird decks and combos.

To be more specific, WOTC figured out that there are a number of player personalities. It applies specifically to Magic, but the research can at least be adapted to other games.

Basically, Spike likes to win. They are hyper competitive. In Magic they are the people who are likely to pick and choose cards that have no story reason to go together, no particular combo that needs to be built up, and don't particularly care about big numbers. They look for the "best" cards. Translate that to D&D and you probably have people who look for the "best" power each time they pick one. That might not be the one that does the most damage, but the one that is most effective overall.

Timmys like big numbers, big effects, big everything. They like do be the one who does 10,000 damage even though it only took 20 to win. If it takes them 10 rounds of doing almost nothing in order to do something overwhelmingly big, they'll do it. Even if they could have won in round 3 with more subtle tactics. Even if it causes them to lose, they don't care. The one time in 10 they do win, they get to do it extravagantly.

Johnnys like combos. They like to be the one that stuns with their first power then attacks someone with a power that does more damage against stunned targets as immediately after. They are the ones that like to take all Cold keyword powers and get a feat that adds to all their powers because of that.

Part of the key to game design is understanding these player personalities and understanding that they each view the game in a different way. A power that is Str-5 vs AC for 4[w]+str at 5th level might be a little weak for most Spikes but will have Timmy's taking it constantly. A power that does 0 damage but immobilizes an enemy likely has Timmys and Spikes staring in disbelief but has Johnnys drooling after they see the power that stuns someone who is immobilized without an attack roll.

So, you need to design powers and abilities that apply to each of the player types. And guides really need to be written with each of these types in mind.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'd be a bit more generous and suggest that maybe they read them, but only after they had a negative opinion of the CharOp boards, and everything therein. Some posters seem to be very touchy about the idea that you might not follow their advice 100%, for whatever reason.

I've read them and I admit some are better than others. I just disagreed with about 90% of the advice given in the Avenger one. I found that as I was going through the list of powers, it would often say "Don't take this power, it only does 2[w] which is way too low for a Striker power of this level, instead, if you can, multiclass into Rogue and take this power instead". Then I looked at the power and said "Well, it isn't the greatest power in the world but it encourages enemies to stay beside me and attack me which is the primary goal of my character...it doesn't do that much damage but if all the enemies attack you, it does way more damage. I think I'm going to take it."

Meanwhile the handbook claimed it was the worst power of its level. It didn't go into any explanation as to why it might be a GOOD power some of the time or even say some builds of Avenger might want it. It just said "not worth taking...too low damage, and as a striker all you want is damage".

If you want or expect the Handbooks to build your character for you... Well, they mostly will, and it will be both optimized (for certain values of optimized) and cookie-cutter.

Of course the Handbooks aren't going to build a character for me. But I do expect a well thought out and balanced discussion of the merits and flaws of powers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To be more specific, WOTC figured out that there are a number of player personalities. It applies specifically to Magic, but the research can at least be adapted to other games.

this amazes me...infact it is what I have been trying to put into words for years...

Part of the key to game design is understanding these player personalities and understanding that they each view the game in a different way. A power that is Str-5 vs AC for 4[w]+str at 5th level might be a little weak for most Spikes but will have Timmy's taking it constantly. A power that does 0 damage but immobilizes an enemy likely has Timmys and Spikes staring in disbelief but has Johnnys drooling after they see the power that stuns someone who is immobilized without an attack roll.

although you went to extremes to prove your point I do see it...and it is mostly what I have seen.

So, you need to design powers and abilities that apply to each of the player types. And guides really need to be written with each of these types in mind.

but the opt board makes them for spike, and the mag articles make them for Johnny...(and to be honnest the warlord one still has one or two flaws in it) it makes so much sense now...

I think we need this type of open design for intended audiance in D&D...wow just wow...

 

[nightwyrm]

To be fair, some handbooks are a lot better than others depending on the writer. Sturgeon's Law and all that...

 

[kaomera]

I've read them and I admit some are better than others. I just disagreed with about 90% of the advice given in the Avenger one.

I wanted to discuss this, but unfortunately neither of the Avenger Handbooks that I can currently find seem to be complete enough to actually have a powers section at the moment... =/ I blame the WotC boards reorganization / facelift...

Of course the Handbooks aren't going to build a character for me. But I do expect a well thought out and balanced discussion of the merits and flaws of powers.

Well, IMO, that's not what the Handbooks are. I may personally not think that "well thought out and balanced" is a great description for the whole of the CharOp boards (and I don't feel inclined to sift out the gold from the, uh, "you know"), but the boards are where you are going to see the real discussion. The Handbooks are pretty much for people who don't want to sift through discussion, and just see the "final" results, at least as filtered by the Handbook's compiler. And one advantage of the Handbooks for me is that there's less temptation to go and post about what advice you are using and/or what you're ignoring, which would probably just start an argument anyway. The Handbook is one person's compiled advice on how to optimize your character. Optimize =/= build; the reason all of the options, even the "dead" / "bad" ones, are listed is that they are all still available to you, if that's what you want to do. It's up to you and the rest of the group you play with how much optimization is enough (and how much is too little or too much).