Quote from: Haffrung;693589That's funny too, but I was referring to a post by Ezekiel where he admitted that he has only played 4E a couple times. Can't be arsed to track it down, though.

Quote from: Bobloblah;693537The problem, I think, is that it can't have mechanical representation without being open to the potential for charop. There are a few paths that can minimize the potential (e.g. no choices, mechanically barely differentiated choices, etc.), but the more mechanical selection, the harder that becomes.

Quote from: Sommerjon;693615Really?
I didn't realize a "build" had to be planned months in advance and under no circumstances with random stat generation.

Quote from: Sommerjon;693615If I want to be a fighter who can cast a couple spells the only way to do that is start as a Fighter then switch over the MU?
Yet here you are accusing the newer editions of ChaOp.:confused:

Quote from: vytzka;693627While that is true, there is a serious amount of cutting off your nose to spite your face in throwing out character customization to stick it to char op people. What you actually do is provide fun character customization options and don't pay more than token attention to the charop types (at both individual group as well as publishing level). That way everybody who is not a jerk wins.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;693636No timeframe required. It just needs to have the ability for planning in the first place. (guaranteed stats, options, etc.)

If any part of your plan depends on a random factor then it isn't a build because it might not be possible. To qualify as a build the options have to be accessible 100% of the time.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;693636It isn't the only way, its the way most likely to succeed.

Quote from: TristramEvans;693774My main problem with charOp comes from 'trap choices ( using the words of Monte cook, the one who introduced the concept to D&D). I dont want an RPG that rewards 'system mastery, like a ccg. I want an RPG that anyone on the street can play without being penalized for being a newbie or not spending hours/days on charge.

Quote from: estar;693778No such animal exists. If the game is too simplistic to hack then players will start focusing on the stuff, if the stuff is not forthcoming, then they focus on manipulating their fellow players and/or the referees. The games one can play are endless.

Rules are not the problem nor the fix. The solution involves training/teaching better players and better referees.

Where are important is in terms of personal taste. Like whether one likes Scifi or fantasy.

Quote from: vytzka;693785The deliberate trap options thing is way, way, WAY overblown. Cook was the only one to even ever talk about it, it was based on the flawed (though potentially currently practiced at the time, I don't know) understanding of the Magic Timmy/Johnny/Spike dynamic and he wasn't even talking about completely useless things, just comparatively less useful in most situations. Toughness is not a bad feat at all if you're a level 1 wizard in a single shot adventure.

It's a non-issue which has been blown out of all proportion because people fucking hate Cook and want to accuse him of everything under the sun. Don't buy into that shit, guys.

Quote from: estar;693554Even at the expense of how the setting supposed to work.

Here the things. OD&D is without dispute very abstract compared to later RPGs. However when you read about the rulings in early campaigns it was grounded in what the guys knew about how combat and actions worked. Sometimes it was ignored in favor of cinematic actions but it was obvious when that was happening.

Which brings back to the question of the leather armour knife guy versus plate and shield guy. Why should the leather armor guy be as effective as the plate armor guy mechanically? That not how it worked in real life.

When given the choice the fighters invariably armored up with as much gear as they could withstand. And only dropped it later when gunpowder and polearm tactics made it less necessary.

Leather armor and knife fighter existed because you didn't walk around in plate all the time. Or you couldn't afford plate and had to make do. Or you where doing something where plate would be a hindrance.

My counterpoint is that the problem isn't that the RPG makes leather and knife mechanically inferior. The problem is that the rulebook, referee, or setting doesn't give you the opportunities where leather and knife is the preferred style or the style of necessity.

However if a ruleset wants to be more cinematic then yes by all means make leather and knife and any other combinations as effective as any other choice.  Personally I think D&D works best when it is a dash of the fantastic thrown on top of an abstracted version of how things really worked. But it is a personal peference like yours of having a effective. leather and knife fighter

Quote from: vytzka;693791What do you base your belief that they added bad feats to 4e on purpose rather than out of incompetence on? I'm not accusing YOU of blowing anything out of proportion, it merely seems to me that you're going by bad data so I'd like to correct it if possible.

I was going by forum wisdom on it as well until I read Justin's essay which made me reread the Cook's original statement in a different light.

Quote from: TristramEvans;693800Unfortunately the link to the original article is dead, so I can't compare what the blogger is trying to sell as the correct interpretation. Though I must  say neither of the two authors have a sparkling track record with me. Anyways Um not posting to slog on any one edition, I'm just saying that's an aspect, intentional or not, of game design I think everyone could do without.

I've no idea how much of 4th was incompetence or following a trend. But I am glad the extent to which they're play testing the new edition.

Quote from: vytzka;693802But please consider that to the best of my knowledge it was literally the only place someone has mentioned "intentionally" bad options in games.