What if you don't consider your character to be something you build? What if you consider it something you roll up and then play?

If you don't have access to buy any magic item you can afford (you hafta find 'em!) and if special prestige classes and abilities are also only "unlocked" as part of the campagin -- you can't "build out" your character before you start the game.  You have to plan to be adaptable.  That's how we played pre-WotC D&D.

Quote from: HaffrungWhat if you don't consider your character to be something you build? What if you consider it something you roll up and then play?

See, firstly you're implying that just because we like an effective character, we aren't playing the game or that we're "rollplaying." That's ridiculous. The in-game antics are as big a deal for us as they are for anyone else... with the exception of at least one guy I know who does seem to think that you can "win" DnD, if you know what I mean.

The only actual difference is that our stats aren't determined primarily by rolling, but by our choices.

As for why the internet is clogged with character optimization and not "cool things my character did this week," there's at least two reasons I can think of. The first is that no one gives a shit what Shinkicker the gnome barbarian/monk did to the orc on a critical hit (though for the record, he sent a shard of bone flying into some other orc's eye... hooray for poorly thought-out crit decks). Conversely, people who don't do the whole character building thing will still be interested to find out how they too can play as a sandwich, fight using vorpal pillows, or be a cancer mage with an infinite strength loop. Secondly, the in-play stuff is more fun in play than it is to retype with strangers. Not that you won't repeat anecdotes and have a good laugh with the people who were actually there and to whom it would be relevant.

Now, on an unrelated note, if I were going to build my own system I'd actually downplay the minmaxing at character generation and make the in-game stuff more interesting. Or I'd try to anyway. We'll see if I succeed at it or not when I actually get around to putting it all to paper.

Quote from: StuartIf you don't have access to buy any magic item you can afford (you hafta find 'em!) and if special prestige classes and abilities are also only "unlocked" as part of the campagin -- you can't "build out" your character before you start the game. You have to plan to be adaptable. That's how we played pre-WotC D&D.

Hey look! It's RAW! It's errata! No, it's HOUSERULES.

Houserules to the rescue.
I've played modded 3x games like this. Hell, it's how I run it (the magic gear part, anyway). It works fine.

Quote from: HaffrungWhat if you don't consider your character to be something you build? What if you consider it something you roll up and then play?

Easy: roll up a character and play. Just because you can min-max doesn't mean you're forced to.

Quote from: James McMurrayEasy: roll up a character and play. Just because you can min-max doesn't mean you're forced to.

Sure. But don't you think a game tailored to suit crunch-hungry players is going to be less accessible to casual gamers than one that isn't? I believe all games have a target audience. Some have broader target audiences than others. But no game can be all things to all people. Those who enjoy the crunch of 3.x would likely find the abstracted play and non-customized PCs of basic to be unappealing. It stands to reason that the reverse is also true.

11-year-olds who never cracked any of the books could play Basic D&D just fine. And millions did. The designers of 3E have said they  targetted the game at an older, more hardcore market than earlier editions. They probably had to. For sound financial reason, they also wanted to make a game that appealed to players (as opposed to DMs) who loved new rules. And they obviously succeeding in making a very successful game for that market. But it's also a less accessible game than Basic D&D, for instance.

Quote from: HaffrungSure. But don't you think a game tailored to suit crunch-hungry players is going to be less accessible to casual gamers than one that isn't?

Look at the three core books for 3.x. Tell me with a straight face that's powergamey. The minmaxing game is mostly about taking advantage of unforseen consequences of combinations of things that are sound and balanced alone. So for casual gamers, Dungeons and Dragons is three fairly balanced books. For minmaxers it's more like twenty seven books riddled with holes.

QuoteThose who enjoy the crunch of 3.x would likely find the abstracted play and non-customized PCs of basic to be unappealing. It stands to reason that the reverse is also true.

Play as a monk, paladin, or druid. Problem solved. You've got a class that isn't customizable. Now look at the starting feat package in the sample PC. Viola. You got yourself a PC you just rolled up without making any decisions. Difficult?

Quote11-year-olds who never cracked any of the books could play Basic D&D just fine. And millions did. The designers of 3E have said they  targetted the game at an older, more hardcore market than earlier editions. They probably had to. For sound financial reason, they also wanted to make a game that appealed to players (as opposed to DMs) who loved new rules. And they obviously succeeding in making a very successful game for that market. But it's also a less accessible game than Basic D&D, for instance.

Now, I think you've caught on to something in that Dungeons and Dragons 3x is almost unique among RPGs... it sells supplements to players as well as DMs.

I do worry about accessibility, but I think 3x core got it about right. within that smaller context, stuff worked. Hell, I can GM a dungeon crawl with no prep. And characters straight out the phb take little effort, even if the dissimilar assets are a pain in the ass (I loathe the beancounting of the skill system... and gearing up characters above fourth level is such tedium with little reward).

I don't know that I've ever really worried much about 4e's mechanics really ruining the game. They won't. If anything does, it'll be a newer crappier look and feel. You know the one... the one where it's trying too hard to look cool. Dragonborn, tieflings, and eladrin in the corebook hit a sour note with me. Likewise the take on halflings. If the special abilities' flavor is as suck as all that, then I'm worried.

QuoteLook at the three core books for 3.x. Tell me with a straight face that's powergamey. The minmaxing game is mostly about taking advantage of unforseen consequences of combinations of things that are sound and balanced alone. So for casual gamers, Dungeons and Dragons is three fairly balanced books. For minmaxers it's more like twenty seven books riddled with holes.

YES.

I say again, in big bold letters:  YES.

D&D3, in it's core, is a rather straightforward well balanced game.  The easiest solution to keeping it that way is simply to skip all the damn sourcebooks.  The game runs just bloody fine without them, a fact that everyone likes to ignore and deliberately start twisting all the corebooks together into some megamass in an attempt to portray the game as uncharitably as possible.  

D&D core is a handful of classes, a much smaller collection of feats than it's detractors like to portray, and a pretty piddly number of not-so-hot prestige classes that were largely included as example templates for GMs who want to make their own.  

Yup, that's right.  Make their own.  The DMG has a whole section of advice to GMs on how to design their own feats and classes and other such business, and encourages GMs to do so so they can create neat stuff tailored to their players and their characters.  

Hell, I've done it myself.  Wanted a neat sniper-y, ranged sort of class, so I made one up in the course of a couple hours, largely ripping off some bits from the other core classes, mainly the Ranger, Druid, and the Rogue.  

Oh, wait, wait a minute.  That's right, I'm forgetting the grognard rules, only 1e allowed that kind of thing, so obviously I must have imagined all that.  :rolleyes:

Not so, J. I could have written 95% of that post of yours, and so could Calithena or Rob, I am sure.

There are different 3.xs. Infraweb chatter is dominated by the fanboiz of one version of it, which resembles 2E Skillz & Powerz raised from the dead, and Teh Grognard Brigade is a response to that. That character build of Beejazz'... no offense BJ, but my eyes just glaze over, please give me some wet paint to watch.

It occurs to me that, while these 3.x builds are often only compared to MMORPGs, there's a structural similarity to a bunch of other games that don't get mentioned as often in this context: the deck in MtG (etc.), the army lists in Warhammer (etc.). What they have in common is: a) frontloading (the game is played before the game begins); b) lots of merchandise to purchase for a); c) deliberate ivory tower approach to rules. Competence in these games = $$$ plus rules research.

Quote from: HaffrungSure. But don't you think a game tailored to suit crunch-hungry players is going to be less accessible to casual gamers than one that isn't? I believe all games have a target audience. Some have broader target audiences than others. But no game can be all things to all people. Those who enjoy the crunch of 3.x would likely find the abstracted play and non-customized PCs of basic to be unappealing. It stands to reason that the reverse is also true.

Definitely. But if your play style is different enough from your group's to cause problems, it won't matter what system you're playing. They'll likely be as unhappy with the rules light non-customizabilty of BD&D as you are with the crunchiness of 3.x. If the game is somewhere in the middle (2e perhaps), everyone may have a vague sense of uneasiness.

This applies equally well to any system, not just D&D. It's a preferences problem. Luckily there are tons of game systems and groups out there, so it should be possible for everyone to game happily.

Quote11-year-olds who never cracked any of the books could play Basic D&D just fine. And millions did. The designers of 3E have said they  targetted the game at an older, more hardcore market than earlier editions. They probably had to. For sound financial reason, they also wanted to make a game that appealed to players (as opposed to DMs) who loved new rules. And they obviously succeeding in making a very successful game for that market. But it's also a less accessible game than Basic D&D, for instance.

I won't disagree with that. But I also won't begrudge the company making sound business decisions to further the line.

Quote from: J ArcaneYES.

I say again, in big bold letters:  YES.

D&D3, in it's core, is a rather straightforward well balanced game.  The easiest solution to keeping it that way is simply to skip all the damn sourcebooks.  The game runs just bloody fine without them, a fact that everyone likes to ignore and deliberately start twisting all the corebooks together into some megamass in an attempt to portray the game as uncharitably as possible.  

D&D core is a handful of classes, a much smaller collection of feats than it's detractors like to portray, and a pretty piddly number of not-so-hot prestige classes that were largely included as example templates for GMs who want to make their own.  

Yup, that's right.  Make their own.  The DMG has a whole section of advice to GMs on how to design their own feats and classes and other such business, and encourages GMs to do so so they can create neat stuff tailored to their players and their characters.  

Hell, I've done it myself.  Wanted a neat sniper-y, ranged sort of class, so I made one up in the course of a couple hours, largely ripping off some bits from the other core classes, mainly the Ranger, Druid, and the Rogue.  

Oh, wait, wait a minute.  That's right, I'm forgetting the grognard rules, only 1e allowed that kind of thing, so obviously I must have imagined all that.  :rolleyes:

I don't know if you consider me one of those grognards or not, but I can't agree with you more about your assessment.  It's why I am always of two minds about 3e. It's why I was so bummed to discover that instead of extending and improving in some basic ways, WotC decided to, most likely for business reasons based on research and competition (which is all well and good, IMHO), completely reinterpret the game.

It's why I always talk about a weird hybrid of 1e and 3e as being my personal end goal system. And when I say 3e, I mean the three cores, not the 27 extensions...