I already talked about this issue before, so I'll link to the Monte Cook article.

tl;dr the 3rd Edition designers made choosing the right options more complicated and involved than necessary; the system's complicated enough, you shouldn't intentionally make subpar options look cool.

On the other hand, Toughness has saved two of my characters, both Fighters. It just doesn't scale well, except maybe in E6.

Quote from: Melan;575428On the other hand, Toughness has saved two of my characters, both Fighters. It just doesn't scale well, except maybe in E6.

Improved Toughness is more viable of an option, especially when you'll be spending 1/7th or 1/8th of your feat choice options on something marginally useful.

In fact, the most worthwhile feats are those outside of the PHB.

Charops happens when referees abdicate the responsibility for managing their campaign.

Char Ops happens in GURPS and Hero but it obvious when it does due to the descriptive nature of the character traits. You look at and go "huh?"

Both of these RPGs are presented as toolkits from which the referee construct their campaign. So unlike D&D's "everything is core" attitude it expected that the referee will be not be using everything the system has to offer.  

I have a newcomer to my GURPS Majestic Wilderlands and had to tell him several times that the handout defines which Skills, and advantages I allow not the rulebook.  Of course being my hobby the handout isn't completely up to date so it can be frustrating at times as I  revise it.

For one of the areas he was interested in, Spirit Magic, I explained that beyond a few vague ideas I have not detailed that aspect of my setting. So if he interested in pursuing that area for his character than we can look at the stuff GURPS has and refine it from there. But in the end the final call is mine.

If I am satisfied with how something works in the campaign, then that how it going to be regardless of what SJ Games says does. I am the final arbiter of what rules goes into the game.

I refereed several 4e games this way. Once after several major errata to the core rules, a player tried to play it to his advantage and I shut it down. I didn't know about it and I was going with what I could look up with what I had.

Then he tried to abuse it but I shut that down by simply telling him to describe what his character  was doing as if he was there. Then I told him what he needed to roll. He complained a bit but stopped after he saw that I treated everybody fairly and that my way allowed for more options as it adapted 4e to what the players wanted to do rather than the other way around.

And then I got my usual "Rob, you DM 4e differently than everybody else I know.'

Quote from: Imperator;575335D&D was CharOp friendly since the beginning, just like the others. You just didn't have Internet so CharOpers could easily compare strategies.

Are you familiar with OD&D, B/X, and AD&D?

Not exactly charop heaven here (started slightly creeping in with UA for AD&D)

In OD&D and B/X you optimize by choosing the class you rolled the highest stat in. Done.

Quote from: Imperator;575335D&D was CharOp friendly since the beginning, just like the others. You just didn't have Internet so CharOpers could easily compare strategies.

Of course there is room for some character optimization, in the loosest sense of the word, in pre-3e D&D, every time a player makes a choice about his character (e.g. which weapon to use, which spell to memorize). But when most people mention CharOp, it's Pun-Pun and the like that they're thinking of.

The amount of choices that a player gets creating and leveling up a TSR-era D&D character (with the possible exception of AD&D 2e) is trivial next to the smorgasbord of "builds" available to a 3e character. You can "dip" into a different class, you can play the feat tree, you can join a prestige class, etc.

It's the metagameyness of it all that detracts from the experince, for me and for most others. I play with some very clever people, at least one of whom who has an impressive eye for finding and exploiting this sort of thing, but he limits himself to character concepts which fit the game world (or as we say, "uses his powers for good" ) and is never, ever a dick about it.

Quote from: The Butcher;575495But when most people mention CharOp, it's Pun-Pun and the like that they're thinking of.
.

Pun-Pun tells us two things

1)3e is way too permsive in leting PCs have things that come out of a monster stablock.

2)The person at WotC who wrote the Manipulate Form ability and the editor who let it go to print were on some serious drugs.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575534Pun-Pun tells us two things

1)3e is way too permsive in leting PCs have things that come out of a monster stablock.

2)The person at WotC who wrote the Manipulate Form ability and the editor who let it go to print were on some serious drugs.

3) The GM who would let it happen is a moron.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;5755363) The GM who would let it happen is a moron.

I thought that went without saying

Quote from: The Butcher;575495But when most people mention CharOp, it's Pun-Pun and the like that they're thinking of.

Don't you think that this is setting up a strawman and stapling it to the back of anyone who happens to say "I like doing character builds"?

I mean, would anyone here defend such an extreme example?

Quote from: gleichman;575575Don't you think that this is setting up a strawman and stapling it to the back of anyone who happens to say "I like doing character builds"?

I mean, would anyone here defend such an extreme example?

Thunder-fucking-dome!

Come on, Brian, get a life.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575573I thought that went without saying

Ah, but the whole thing leads us back to the discussion about if it's the GM's responsibility to curb that sort of thing, or if, because it's possible under the RAW, the GM is required to allow it to take place.

Since I was just thinking about Hero in writing another response, here's an example of it:

There's a lot of powers in Hero/Champions that are, in spite of their relative point cost, gamebreaking.  The publishers included them in the game, but put a warning next to them, specifying that the GM should either watch their use carefully, or just outright ban them if he doesn't like dealing with them.  They exist in the RAW, but it's incorporated in the system to have GM interaction.

And Hero is a pure point-buy system, where CharOp is honestly part of the game.  You can spend hours working on crafting the perfect disad to get that extra -1/4 put on your power so that you can afford to pick up another +1 OCV in Hth.

Quote from: One Horse Town;575576Thunder-fucking-dome!

Come on, Brian, get a life.

I'm not sure what you mean here, or how Thunderdome relates. Did someone involved actually defend that example of Pun-Pun in one of the Thundedome threads?

Maybe you mean that the actions of MGuy and Kaelik are so bad that CharOp is ruined as a method of play by association? That would be like burning all Freemasons at the stake because of Pundit don't you think?

Quote from: gleichman;575579I'm not sure what you mean here, or how Thunderdome relates. Do someone involved actually defend that example of Pun-Pun in one of the Thundedome threads?

No, mate. I'm just slightly tired of recent "en-garde!" defend yourself or you're a cunt/lier/dick-head/deluded, type of statements.

Hell, i'm just tired, period.

Quote from: One Horse Town;575580No, mate. I'm just slightly tired of recent "en-garde!" defend yourself or you're a cunt/lier/dick-head/deluded, type of statements.

Hell, i'm just tired, period.

It's been a rough week.