>Players talk extensively about "Builds"

>players are such idiots that they can't figure out their builds on their own and thus need to talk about them
I know right?

Out of context this means nothing

>>51595000
Yes?

If you're playing games that aren't rules-light and narrative-focused, then they're going want to make sure that their characters are built differently but efficiently, to ensure that everyone in the group will enjoy an acceptable proportion of the spotlight.

As the GM, it's your duty to assist in this and ensure that no one runs away with a disproportionately good build and that no one has a disproportionately bad build that leaves them with either nothing to do or unable to fulfill their role adequately.

>>51595077

>As the GM, it's your duty to assist in this and ensure that no one runs away with a disproportionately good build

What is this commie GMing you're advocating

>>51595077
>As the GM, it's your duty to assist in this and ensure that no one runs away with a disproportionately good build

No, it's your duty to make sure that everyone has fun during the course of the game. The other players made their choice by not making as optimal of a character.

>>51595301

Having fun means making sure everyone can interact with the game. Minor imbalances can always happen, but if someone will be literally irrelevant mechanically it's your job as a GM to help them out.

>>51595338

>but if someone will be literally irrelevant mechanically it's your job as a GM to help them out.

Not by punishing other players for knowing the system it's not.

>>51595373

Who said anything about punishing players?

I've ended up with overpowered characters before, generally by accident or not knowing what level of optimisation the group is at. Sometimes I've realised it myself, other times the GM has come to me with it, but either way I'm always happy to talk to them about toning the character down to fit in with the rest of the group or helping the other players characters be stronger, whichever works best with the system we're currently using.

If you actively want your character to be more powerful than everyone else you're just a selfish douchebag.

>>51595000

Well, shit systems like DnD live on crap like builds and min maxing.

>>51595251
It's called ensuring everyone has fun by not letting one player dictate the pace of the game. Tabletop RPGs aren't meant to be competitive, even if they can be played that way.

So let's say we're playing D&D 3.5 (god forbid) and one player's planning to play some optimized pile of four/five prestige classes he got off the internet, while everyone else is playing an ordinary character. It's fair to tell a player like that to tone it down and try to match the power level of the rest of the group.

>>51595419
>If you actively want your character to be more powerful than everyone else you're just a selfish douchebag.

Sounds like you just have a cuckold beta mindset I guess. Sorry buddy.

>>51595419

I still stand by the idea a good GM works with the less-skilled players to build them up instead of trying to convince a skilled player to not use the tools the GM provided. If you don't want players cheesing then you as the GM shouldn't be playing a system which is apparently so easy to break.

We're not talking about a munchkin playing to win. We're talking about how you apparently expect someone to feel guilty about making a competent character.

>>51595503

Roleplaying games are a cooperative experience. If the GM says 'Don't use these overpowered mechanical options/keep characters to this level of power', that's legitimate and a good player will follow it.

Even without that pre-established discussion, if there isn't really an option to make other characters more powerful, if the options they want to use cap out at a certain degree of power, it's still entirely okay for the GM to talk with the player about toning their character down. It's not about guilt or punishment, it's about everyone working together to make sure the game is fun for everyone.

>>51595000
It's time once again to remind /tg/ that the word "Moderation" exists. Creating a character to fit a persona, perform well at a specific task, or fill a certain role is fine.

What's not fine is when the game begins to form a meta based around power of character builds, organizing a tier of player options based on their utility, and any coherent discussion(When not about which fantasy race you want to fuck, besided Kitsune) is exclusively about creating a character the same way one discusses MTG competitive builds.

>>51595554

If someone being better than you at the game actually hinders your fun it means one of two things: you are incredibly insecure or that player is a huge asshole about it. Either way, those aren't things you can fix just by forcing the better player to gimp himself.

Yeah, it's annoying when the high level Wizard throws every monster through a dimensional door but you can remedy that by not playing a system where that's even an option. I don't want to turn this into a "have you tried not playing D&D thread" but choosing a system you feel works is a far better tool for ensuring fun than choosing one which doesn't work and telling your players not to do X Y or Z because it's "unfair".

>>51595622

Why is 'Player skill' a thing you keep bringing up?

I enjoy game mechanics, I enjoy playing with them and seeing what they can do, but I don't think that entitles me to any more ability to interact with a game than a less 'skilled' player. If anything, it obliges me to use my greater knowledge of the system to help them.

There's a player in my group who just won't shut up about the most recent numbers on his character sheet. Whenever he levels up, he starts rattling off his saves and bonuses and average damage per round that he now does. But we're always playing at his house, so everybody just listens and nods politely.

>>51595622
It's not even "Have you tried not playing D&D>" it's "Have you tried playing 5e?"

Yeah, Yeah, you don't like 5e because of lack of options, or bounded accuracy, or a myriad of other reasons that we could argue incessantly about. Bottom line is that the latest edition seems to have hit most of the right notes.

>>51595077
Aside from that, even when looking at things from the perspective of narrative, you'll probably want to make sure your character is actually suited for telling the kinds of stories you have in mind. Playing, like, a kung fu monk who's spent his entire life in some distant monastery kicking things, an who is pretty good at kicking things but just starting to learn things others consider common sense, might be cool. It'd be less cool if it turned out that your character wasn't actually any good at kicking things, or if he was more skilled at some things than he should be. Mechanics and narrative should ideally work together.

File: 4cd.jpg (82KB, 1024x812px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1024x812px

>>51595000
>Players are having "fun"

>>51595622
If being asked to exhibit a little self-control and not snatch the spotlight actually hinders your fun, the same can be said about you.

It's not even a case of the smartest player gimping himself. Sometimes, it's just someone printing out a cookie cutter build and slapping it on a sheet, while more intelligent players are playing more balanced, sensible characters that aren't just piles of statistics. If expressing your superior knowledge and understanding of the system is fundamental to your enjoyment of a game, consider getting into wargaming or CCGs.

If a game has combat resolution mechanics, players will optimize to beat those combat resolution mechanics. Munchkin's law.

File: Friend Computer Is Watching.jpg (47KB, 373x500px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 373x500px

>>51595469
>Tabletop RPGs aren't meant to be competitive
Do you have a few minutes to talk about Friend Computer?

File: ancap.png (66KB, 547x402px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 547x402px

>>51596132
>Anything that keeps me from trying to prove my 'superiority' over others is communism!

>>51595740
Every time. It is like they are playing Diablo or something. Why can't they just use stats that best represent their character?

>>51595301
>it's your duty to make sure that everyone has fun during the course of the game

that's an umbrella phrase that directly includes what the person you were quoting says, you faggot.

also not letting players walk into obvious idiot traps. if you see somebody about to make a stupid decision which you think could impact their enjoyment, you talk to them about it.

letting your players hang themselves on whatever shitty system you are playing isn't good gming. helping your players organise and balance their party is gming 101, since you want everyone to be enjoying themselves to a roughly equal level, even if 'fun' can't really be measured.

>>51595494
>cuck

wew lad

Not everyone is in this to play out their obnoxious power fantasy

>>51596132
Eh, anon is retarded

>Most tabletop RPGs aren't meant to be competitive

Fixed

File: f55.jpg (52KB, 620x850px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 620x850px

>>51595000
At least they don't call them "toons"

>>51595000
>Players talk extensively about "Builds"
>But, once the game is going, they mostly stay in-character when they aren't laughing at cross-campaign references and running jokes
>They also make sure to include elements in their "Builds" that you can spin into plot hooks of varying sizes

File: adi ist genervt.jpg (7KB, 282x261px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 282x261px

>>51596193
No one ever said something about communism your new is showing.

>Kon talks extensively about "Marriage"

>>51596799
>Koume talks extensively about something we can't understand because it is in French
Why do exotic escorts do this?

File: 7c6.png (16KB, 550x718px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 550x718px

>>51595000
>Players call their back-up characters extra marios

>>51597410
Better than calling any of their characters "toons".

File: vidya_jew.png (141KB, 440x278px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 440x278px

>>51597410
>players calling buffs mushrooms

File: uncle.png (313KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 400x400px

>>51597507
>>players calling buffs mushrooms

File: yikes.jpg (53KB, 648x484px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 648x484px

>"I'm playing a D.P.S. fighter"

>>51598393
I agree, there's no excuse for not using the proper terminology of DPR.

>>51595596
>besides kitsune
fuck you kitsunes are nice and
>besided

>>51595000
>Players get into a friendly battle
>One wins as normal
>Other takes the loss in stride but you can see it in his eyes that he is brewing something up
>A level later they fight again
>The second player wins this time
>This kicks off an arms race that leaves the other two players behind
>The two constantly fighting each other end up as gods that shred CR's 10 levels ahead of them

I really want to ban all player fights because this shit always happens. Its not even the same two guys. But the second two players decided to test their PC's against each other I know what is coming. But every time I try they just do it anyway behind my back. I cant even just kill the characters off because they come back with a fresh char that is PERFECTLY geared to do their thing now since they can now optimize the low levels before they decided to start one upping each other.

>>51595000
youre one of those fags that gets pissy over not having a detailed explanation as to why a character would have every single skill that he/she has arent you?

>>51598516

It depends on the system. D&D and its ilk suck for PvP, but I've actually had some amazing PvP happen in Legends of the Wulin games I've ran and played, which added to the experience rather than distracting from it.

File: 1463348892787.gif (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>Roleplay every Wednesday night with 5 close friends.
>Used to only play Dark Heresy, but decided to try Pathfinder.
>Only one guy knows the system, but he knows it well and makes an awesome campaign as our GM helping us build our characters and learn rules as we have fun.
>The barbarian rages, the Ranger shoots, the cleric supports, the fighter trips and the inquisitor is a useless piece of shit smug-talker. We're a simple group.
>When the campaign ends he hints that he wants to play as well so both me and another guy makes a one-nighter each to try GMing.
>The first is my friends session. Retired GM brings a Wizard- Zen of this reality! A bald elf with tribal-tattooed skin, samurai armor and a red, teddybear hanging from his belt.
>Pretty cool shit honestly.
>New GM takes us on a simple dungeon crawl trough a kobold mine with a small dragon at the end.
>MFW Zen of this reality starts to fly, summons 4 hellhounds with firebreath then throws 3 explosive fireballs the next round. When badly needed kobold reinforcements arrive he creates a spiked pit beneath them.
>Their helpless now and just as horrifed as the other players around the table.
>Next session I'm GM and make the players chase a group of slaver orcs across a mountain ridge.
>MFW the teddybear is actually an Imp with touch attacks that can fly and turn invisible with more than 40 stealth on a good roll. He can even ask questions to Satan himself.

Zen of this reality broke the game so bad everyone else in the party felt redundant, but apparently his wizard wasn't nearly as broken as what he could've been.

How can anything be more broken than that?!

>>51599546
Divination spells, for one.

>>51599546
....i think you just sold me on pathfinder friendo

Well, I enjoy different builds and unintended interactions between countless classes, feats and spells. It is one the aspect of tabletop rpgs I enjoy greatly. So, I pick a concept and optimize it as much as possible and in the end I probably have at least one gamebreaking stuff on my character sheet. However, instead of stealing spotlight, gamebreaking options stay on my character sheet like big red emergency buttons.

I simply break the game - hopefully in a reasonable way - in case of severe tpk risk. And instead of stealing spotlight, it just becomes my time to shine. And party is happy because I just saved us all.

>>51597248
>Nono talks extensively but nobody can hear her

>>51595048
>Players are excited about potential builds and thus discuss said builds.

>>51595077
>If you're playing games that aren't rules-light and narrative-focused
or new school. Builds are cancer, always have been, always will be. Learn to play your character, not your sheet.

>>51599546
What an asshole.

>>51595769
>Bottom line is that the latest edition seems to have hit most of the right notes.
Yea, and the original games hit all the right notes, it's no surprise the only elements 5e got right were the parts they shat on WotC's old design motivations in a return the old school. Stop settling for only half-garbage and just play the real stuff.

>>51595000
>players have fun in a way that isn't the same as mine

REEEE

>>51596193
I for one am fully in favor of throwing communists out of helicopters

>>51601384
'Fun' is codeword for STOP CRITICIZING ANYTHING I LIKE

>>51601410
>STOP HAVING BADWRONGFUN, YOU MAY ONLY HAVE GOODRIGHTFUN

>>51601403
Shooting them before throwing them out, I presume?

File: speechless animu.png (83KB, 392x267px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 392x267px

>>51601443
>he doesn't have goodrightfun

File: fd9.jpg (48KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 640x960px

>>51601464
>Lot of loyalty for a commie thug

>>51601464
No, this isn't a bane meme

Pinochet my dude, check that shit out

>>51601322

>Learn to play your character, not your sheet.

Except this makes no sense. Your sheet is a representation of your character, and the rules present there act as your frame of reference for interacting with the world.

>>51595071
Not really nothing as they are either talking about engineering related stuff, MMOs/vidya, or D&Dfinder as no one else really talks about builds. Seeing as this is /tg/ it is likely they are engineers.

File: stop-discussing-things.jpg (24KB, 240x192px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 240x192px

>>51601443
>it's only possible to criticize something on the level of a single subjective emotion

>>51601574
Your character sheet represents some mechanical details of your character. It does not at all represent the entire PC as he exists in the shared imaginary nor his ability to interact with the game system. If you think it does, reread the sentence you quoted and realize it's directed at you.

>>51601984

Trying to draw an arbitrary line between the two makes no sense. The rules present on the sheet are mechanical representations of aspects of your character, their personality, skills and capabilities.

If you roleplay a character completely different to the one you have represented on your sheet, you're doing it just as wrong as if you only roll dice and don't roleplay at all.

>>51602056
Stop reading it so literally, it's just a saying describing two distinct approaches to play, like roleplay vs. rollplay. It doesn't literally mean you can only have one or the other, that there's no cross pollination or blurred lines between the two approaches, but they two group two recognizably different schools of play that people to naturally gravitate towards. Likewise, there's a school of play that's "playing your PC" vs. "playing your character sheet," and build-oriented design (skills+feats) ala 3e strongly encouraged players towards the latter by nature of its mechanics.

In other games, you would see a wall and then describe climbing it, in a build style game, you'd look down at your sheet, evaluate your skill level in climb and then declare what you'll do, telling the DM what your skill level and letting him evaluate. A roll might be required in both scenarios, but in the latter, you're playing your sheet. In the former, you don't need to look at the sheet to know your PC's skills (beyond the fundamental 6 abilities that your character would be presumably built on), personality, history, capabilities.

>>51602200

The distinction you're drawing still doesn't make sense to me.

When you want to accomplish a task in an RPG, you refer to your sheet for the mechanical side, and then describe the actions your character takes in pursuit of it. The only reason you wouldn't refer to your sheet is if you knew it by heart, whether due to the system being simple or having memorised it as a player, but neither of those is particularly connected to playstyle.

This doesn't account for things which aren't directly represented in the rules, of course, but that just adds a simple extra step- First you talk to the GM. Maybe it just happens without a roll, maybe it's not possible, most of the time they tell you which particular mechanical bit is most appropriate and the process proceeds as normal.

>>51602328
He's arguing the stormwind fallacy, just ignore him.

File: BX CS 1.jpg (300KB, 1236x1600px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1236x1600px

>>51602328
>The distinction you're drawing still doesn't make sense to me.
You haven't played a pre-millenial RPG, have you?

>When you want to accomplish a task in an RPG, you refer to your sheet for the mechanical side
Only with skills & feats and their kind, mate. What I'm trying to tell you is this isn't true in games not designed around builds. It doesn't mean the system is simple, it just means the game mechanics isn't oriented around your character sheet or even player-facing in general.

>>51602421
I literally clarified the opposite:
>it's just a saying describing two distinct approaches to play, like roleplay vs. rollplay. It doesn't literally mean you can only have one or the other, that there's no cross pollination or blurred lines between the two approaches
faggot

>>51602461

I don't see how 'builds' are relevant at all to my core point, or how pointing at older games changes things unless they operate on such a completely different paradigm as to be unrecognisable.

You posted a sheet. There will have been numbers on that sheet, and there will have been rules that created a number of reliable, mechanical effects based on those numbers. And that's all there needs to be for my prior point to apply.

File: FNU3KXDH8FOFT02.jpg (207KB, 1465x922px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1465x922px

>>51602511
The point is it demonstrates fundamental difference in game design

>The only reason you wouldn't refer to your sheet is if you knew it by heart, whether due to the system being simple or having memorised it as a player, but neither of those is particularly connected to playstyle.
The B/X sheet posted does not contain the entirety of mechanics you can engage with yet despite that, you can engage with them without having memorized all of them. The difference in design demonstrates the difference in playstyle. Most every skill in the PF sheet are also built into B/X, but it's something that exists in roleplay tied to your PC, his stats, equipment, life story - running him as a realistic agent in the world - not the numbers on the sheet.

>This doesn't account for things which aren't directly represented in the rules, of course, but that just adds a simple extra step- First you talk to the GM
It does in fact account for many things represented in the rules, and the solution is still talking to the GM - not your character sheet or your personal copy of the rules.

>>51602485

I feel you, anon. But you're not going to get through to autistic rollplayers who just can't imagine any other way of doing things.

>>51602485
I never said you were arguing it well.

>>51602633

So... Large amounts of the game are obfuscated from the players? And this is a good thing?

>>51602511
Basic D&D is designed such that a new player can show up, learn what a "dee twenty" is, choose a class, and start playing, all within about ten minutes. There's no charop or buildfagging when there's no mechanical decisions to make during character creation.

File: 1484372104838.jpg (345KB, 1060x1300px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1060x1300px

>>51602704
Well, yes, to both questions, but that's besides the point. Just because mechanics aren't on your character sheet doesn't mean they're obfuscated or non-existent as rules. They're just not on your character sheet.

Again:
>Learn to play your character, not your sheet.

>>51602659
Poor souls

>>51602732
In B/X, your class chooses you.

>>51602704
For some games, it is, yes. One of the reasons old school games have seen some resurgence (and even influenced the design of 5e) is because it makes player skill and attention to the game environment more important than sifting through the rulebook(s) for the combination of choices that makes the numbers on the sheet go up.

>>51595494
Not him, but you're on /tg/ arguing about D&D. Nerd culture aside, you're so far from being an alpha anything that actually matters that you can't even see what one looks like from where you're standing.

I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, I just think you should keep it in perspective.

>>51602762

But what benefit is there to the mechanics not being on your sheet? Isn't having a comprehensive quick reference a good and useful thing?

>>51602810
This isn't true, there are totally "nerd alphas", in the sense that they're alpha in their context. For example, that guy that was DM in Freaks & Geeks, I've known a few people just like him. Tends to be the leader of the group, seat of knowledge, doesn't get talked over, generally most world-experienced, etc. Still a total nerd, but it's usually the kind of nerd that's fully unashamed and impressive at it - though not autistic-impressive; rather than the kind that just kind of got into nerd things because they're losers seeking friends.

I know you said 'anything that actually matters' but nerdlife at a certain level of commitment is essentially the same, just a bit grotesquely distorted of a mirror world of real social life.

>>51595000
>DM doesn't say a word about our builds until in-game

>>51602830
It's not just omitting things from the sheet, it's a difference in design. Skills are on 3e's sheet because skills are in the game. This isn't true of B/X (besides thieves, which were a mistake), anything that might've been a "skill" is able to be done by anyone as long as it's realistically feasible in context, which is true of all actions you declare in roleplay.

To define a skill for craft, for example, suddenly limits everyone else's ability to do it while also making the action of crafting not based on a player's creative description (filling a flask of liquor with a torn off piece of shirt, then lighting the end on fire and throwing it) to a mechanical skill roll (I roll to craft molotov cocktail). When the latter is the scenario, and you're faced with a situation that could use a creative solution, you look to your list of pre-defined skills to see what you're capable of in the situation. While without 'character sheet gameplay', the only thing you really have to engage with is the shared imaginary and understanding of your character as an agent with in it - where is he, what's the situation, what does he have on him? Playing your character, not your sheet.

Also, in general, the mechanics are "DM-facing," not "player-facing." You'll roll to attack & to do saves and maybe ability checks, that's about it. The DM did almost all the rolling back then, and there will still a lot of mechanics and a lot of rolls, but they were hidden because D&D is about exploring the dangerous unknown and obfuscation & mystery is a key part of that feeling. It's also why it was important to give players so much freedom in their ability to engage with the environment, they'd need a lot more than a little checklist to survive.

>>51603087

But that doesn't seem like roleplaying a character though. It's more like... Playing a version of yourself, tossed into the context.

Skills provide creative restriction. You aren't capable of whatever you can think of at the time, you're capable of what the character you're playing would be capable of. I guess that's the fundamental difference?

>>51603215
No, you're still limited to what your PC is capable of. As I said, it's engaging with a shared imaginary that your character is an agent acting within it. He's beholden to all the realistic trappings of his background, stats, personality, etc.

>Skills provide creative restriction.
No, just mechanical restriction.
>you're capable of what the character you're playing would be capable of.
No, you're capable of what the character sheet says he's capable of.

>>51598514
Kitsune are trash-tier. Barely a step above Merfolk, and that's only because mermaids have allow for less positions.

>>51603253

>He's beholden to all the realistic trappings of his background, stats, personality, etc.


How is this any different to skills? They, and other mechanical representations you might list on a sheet, are just a reflection of those elements and provide the same kind of creative limitation and storytelling prompts, just in a more tangible way.

>No, you're capable of what the character sheet says he's capable of.

No? You have a reliable set of capabilities you can fall back on, giving you a frame of reference, but every system under the sun also has guidance for GMs for taking actions outside the rules or things that would explicitly appear on your sheet.

Whether it's an ephemeral background you need to keep in mind or a mechanical framework based on it, it's exactly the same kind of creative restriction but expressed in different ways.

>>51603329
>trash-tier
kek nice b8, its wrong, but still nice

>>51603329
kys, kitsune are way fuckin better than Mermaids
You're a centaur degenerate aren't you

>>51603341
>How is this any different to skills?
Because they're not mechanical restrictions. As I pointed out, including a skill for craft, for example, now means anyone who doesn't have it cannot craft. It's not adding an ability to the game, it's isolating it to a specific few.

>but every system under the sun also has guidance for GMs for taking actions outside the rules or things that would explicitly appear on your sheet.
Sure, but if you're regularly taking complicated actions that fall outside of skill checks, then you're not playing your character sheet. You don't look to your sheet to see what you're capable, and not capable of doing. You're not forced to play like that, it's just that some game encourages it more, just as some games will be more 'clear all monsters in the dungeon,' and others discourage combat.

>>51601371
Do people who play the original games "talk about builds" less than 5e players do? In 5e, pretty much anyone who has to discuss how to optimize their character is actually looking for ways to exploit the game, since the game doesn't give you a ton of options to begin with and just about anything works out fine. "How can I play my character efficiently," does not mean the same thing as it would in Trapfinder.

File: 2b9fddbcf607ac94cfaa6c74e38b9850003cb70547cf7d45ef0c52864cb70420.jpg (64KB, 850x1511px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 850x1511px

>>51603905
In OD&D & B/X, player-facing mechanics in chargen are extremely limited. You roll stats 3d6 straight down the line, picking a class is usually as simple as whichever of the class-abilities (STR, INT, WIS) you have the highest in unless you're considering playing a fantasy race - basically the only chance of optimization possible, people would still choose to play classes they weren't exactly best started for just cause they wanted to (OD&D's example character Xylarthen was like this). MU's got starter spells randomly rolled for. Then you rolled for gold and bought equipment, and here, yeah, you "optimize" as best as possible but everyone always optimizes when it comes to money in literally anything. In general, you were beholden to the dice. Chargen wasn't about options, there weren't builds until around AD&D 2e which had a lot of the characteristics that 3e went full throttle with.

Exception is some tables have the attitude where the DM'll class you up for whatever concept you might have (if it's cool enough), for example, you want to be a space dolphin. Usually this will be the rule that you have to accept whatever stats the DM comes up for you. Optimization is not really a possibility here either.

Also, play was all about what you did, not what you were. Legendary stats were rolled but it still always came down to the player. It think it's a similar subtle shift in how PC stories are understood. An old school character barely had any backstory, "only son of a landless knight" is one I stole from some old grognard and use all the time - that doesn't mean PC's don't have any character or story, but it comes from the story you forged playing him, which I think is far more interesting and exciting than penning a 'fictional' backstory.

File: 8519ab9b31fbbfaf60473bce20334a58c753296ccd7e43f3dd843a38f45ac5a2.jpg (122KB, 800x736px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 800x736px

>>51603905
>>51604086
Oh, except for tourneys. This is actually probably where builds first came about. They were usually very tough with winners being whichever group made it furthest in the dungeon, and they usually started high level. So there was room to exploit and create OP builds with MU's spell selections. I think stacking a bunch of Sleep was common, it didn't have a save roll in OD&D.

There was also making firebombs with oil, you often see them banned in home-brews because they're a bit too easy and powerful. Nothing major, I think just banning firebombs and spell stacking as well as placing reasonable restrictions on Wish is the extent of what I've seen of balancing exploits in people's home-brews.

I think players will always do what they can to run up against the limits of the system, I can see why some love the munchkin side of things, but I also think D&D was specifically designed to mitigate it and put all emphasis on good play and keep players on the reactive side.

>>51604086
I have to agree with this guy's sentiment. OD&D really shines because the playstyle is what matters rather then anything front loaded. A good player can get past things like rolling badly by getting everyone to play smartly.

File: 1484438658895.jpg (209KB, 800x857px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 800x857px

>>51601572
Thank you for the bait. Now, please, go back to /pol/

>>51595000
>players discuss builds and tiers and demand full raw no homebrew
>but are dogshit minmaxers that play 'tier 1' with misdunderstood rules and grt mad when you shoe them the raw

PICK A SIDE YOU SCALLOPS.

File: 1468379797661.gif (384KB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 360x240px

>tfw the gm and the veteran player love to power game and made everyone's character but yours
>tfw your character is still the most loved

File: Scylla_extra_art.jpg (166KB, 670x945px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 670x945px

>>51603863
Scylla is my S-Rank. Centaur is E-Rank, Mermaid is F-Rank, and Kitsune is D-Rank.

>>51607417
>scylla
You know what, maybe you don't have complete shit taste

>>51595000
This is fine until
>Players talk extensively about builds
>Use one of these builds for a character
>Character's background is either generic, vague, or non-existent
>Haven't even filled in the name field

For some reason, my old group wonders why their old Forever DM stopped playing with them.

>>51598393
This rustles me. I try not to let it rustle me, but it does every goddamn time. MMO terminology in my TTRPG is enough to get me to the boiling point.

>>51595000
>players don't talk extensively about builds
>play game like 3.5, Shadowrun, Exalted, WoD, etc
>suddenly someone's character ends up being totally useless because they picked a bad class/bad abilities and someone gets mad/stops having fun
I think I'll continue on knowing what the fuck I'm doing, thanks.

>>51599546
What is this Zen of reality business? You yanking my chain?

>>51599546
>How can anything be more broken than that?!
Free metamagic via Sacred Geometry.
Those fireballs dazing(read: no actions) enemies who fail their Reflex save for 3 rounds so it's effectively a save or die, and for free via Sacred Geometry, so they only needed to drop one to win and didn't even have to summon.
If you want to go all-in on blasting with the above two and you're starting at a reasonably late level, Spellslinger for gun enhancement bonus to save DCs for several spells. Makes you less likely to survive if something does pass a save, but it also makes stuff less likely to pass it in the first place. An extremely high DC cone of Fuck You, You're Dazed is absolutely fucking horrible and WILL force the DM to start countering you specifically.
Overland Flight so they only have to drop a single spell on flight all day.
Divination Wizard and a familiar that buffs initiative to go first 99% of the time because of buffs to initiative and never be surprised.
Simply using buffs and no-save crowd control to hypercharge the party above the enemies' power level and make it difficult, if not impossible, for your enemies to fight back, let alone win.

File: Cardboard-Cardboard.jpg (5KB, 291x173px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 291x173px

>>51610086
Not talking about it doesn't equate to not knowing what 'the fuck' you're doing. Also, someone doesn't suddenly end up being useless - they are left behind by the other players, and the GM attempting to challenge them.

The only reason you're doing 'builds' and min/maxing is because you're trying to win, and can't accept a loss. Followed by textbook procedures, there's not a lot of room for character. You're cardboard essentially.

>>51610424
>Also, someone doesn't suddenly end up being useless
Really, I must have imagined sword and board Fighters sucking cock in actual play and being far less useful than an animal companion. In a game like 3.5, a party where every member is deliberately avoiding minmaxing can still easily end up in a position where one or more party members can't pull their weight without massive DM assistance, and literally nothing you say can change that fact.

>>51610086
Wizards and Clerics in 3.5e are going to be powerful no matter what but you can either play a Wizard or Cleric 'normally' or munchkin him to the point where you're worth more than the rest of the party combined.

>>51610619
Or, get this, someone could not actually think about the consequences of the game's mechanics because 'that's minmaxing' and end up making a 12 DEX, 12 STR Monk with EWP:Whip because they thought it'd be interesting.

>>51610672
...yeah he could.

>>51610672
That's also how you end up with a Cleric with Wis 14 and an average pile of spells that were selected because they fit what the character would select or what the player thought would be interesting.
But this character, which was made without minmaxing, will wipe the floor with that character, also made without minmaxing. If that character was minmaxed, it might be on par with this character. Maybe. On the Cleric's off-days. If this character was minmaxed, it'd be a god that walks. Except when it flies or teleports.

File: Good Shit Chibi.jpg (19KB, 217x190px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 217x190px

>>party talks about builds
>>party ALSO talks about character backstory, motivations, and personality
>>party helps newer player mechanically as well as asking questions to help flesh out character backstory to better inform personality and decision-making
>>some of the best roleplaying I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing
>>one of the most highly efficient group of adventurers in terms of versatility and power I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing

It doesn't have to be character or sheet, goddamn.

>>51610738
Yes. That's my point and that's been my point from the beginning. Some faggot trying to be 2cool4school and not bothering with understanding mechanics or their ramifications can cause severe problems without actually trying to.

>>51610756

Exactly. Doing it right, it's both.

>>51601322

What if I told you that you could do both?

>>51610541
>>51610619
>>51610672
>>51610738
Believe it or not, these soulless games would be more balanced than what you do weekly.

I'd honestly rather not play either if this was the case. Also convinced me that 3.5 is made to be shit.

>>51610884
3.5 is not the only game where it's a problem. It's a problem in every single goddamn White Wolf product ever made, it's a problem in Shadowrun, and I'm pretty sure it's a problem in other games with expansive, poorly tested rules too.

>>51610884
Why would you want to play a "soulless" game?

>>51610916
I'd say it's a problem with almost every game because there's always going to be that one class with super exploitable shit

>>51610931
Or just some broken combination of things that are in themselves perfectly fine.

File: 1485244897320.jpg (66KB, 540x472px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 540x472px

>>51610931
> Why would you do the thing you stated you wouldn't
Poor phrasing I guess. I meant to express that I wouldn't play either game in terms of min/max vs. no min/max. It's missing everything that's interesting about the hobby, trading it for such a reductionist view is just depressing.

>>51611134
3.5e has severe problems with Wizards and CoDzilla just shitstomping everything else, there's literally no need for the other classes for the most part
Arguably Wizards are more useful than Fighters from level 1 because of >color spray

File: 132985735776.jpg (12KB, 305x358px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 305x358px

DnD is almost innocent in how it works
It is a ruleset that was never made to be refined
It works kinda like legacy Magic the Gathering
Sure there are lot of broken cards, but you were never meant to capitalize on that.
It is more like "holy shit spell like that exists! wow!" not "wow why did they ever print this game ruined"

...if you think that's a bad thing, then just play a game where "builds" are unimportant.

>>51611413
>> Play a game where "builds" are unimportant.
So with good players? Or a perfectly bland game with in room for creativity?

>>51611480
Paranoia.

>>51596193
I think the joke was less "lol commie mutant traitors" and more that Paranoia is an example of a classic Tabletop RPG specifically and explicitly designed to be competitive.

Hell, most games of Vampire: the Masquerade were a similar brand of "stab your friends in the back to get ahead" competitive, although it wasn't as explicitly spelled out that that was how the devs intended you to play in that case.

>>51598393
>DPS
>second
What kind of baffling real-time RPG are you playing?

Or are you playing D&D and he's being a smartass and dividing his per-round damage by six?

>>51602461
I see attributes and modifiers there. The only difference is now you're making a Dexterity roll instead of an Acrobatics/Tumble roll.

>>51610086
>WoD
>Builds
just play Mage, then your character will be great at everything no matter what you make.

Or Werewolf, as long as it's the newest edition. All you need to be a highly competent Werewolf is built into your template.

>the guy that talks about weird tricks and the way things used to be in-game
>heard about the touch spell that drops an enemy to 0 DEX that was used to kill a dragon three times
>bag of holding a portable hole brought up about six times

>>51611960
I had a trick back in 2e with a spell called "Weighty Chest". The spirit of the spell is to protect boxes from thieves by making the box weigh somewhere between two to five times the weight of whoever tries to pick it up, exclusive to each person trying to pick it up (So two guys have just as much trouble as one guy).

But the actual wording of the spell just says "Any small object". Crossbow bolts, for example.

>>51611776
>>51596723
I caught on to the joke a little too late. The remark about commies was because the previous post referred to asking over-optimising players to tone it down a little as a communist way of thinking.

>>51596695
Jesus I hate that. You are not playing a cartoon. I know it's from some mmo but it still triggers my autist rage.

>>51612131
Wait, people say "toon" when they're not playing "Toon!"?

Why?

>>51612150
That piece of vocabulary is an ancient MMORPG term.

And those gamers used it as a synonym for their "characters" and "alts".
The artstyles of games like World of Warcraft and City of Heroes sort of lended to this "cartoon" concept.

>>51612339
>ancient MMORPG term
Does it predate Toon's publication in 1984?

>>51612359
The MMO timeline isn't very long, so that Steven Jackson Games publication has the MMORPGs beat in using the word "toon" first.

>>51610756
Backstories aren't roleplay. They're amateur writing for your amateur improv theatrics. That's not roleplay.

>>51611817
Except ability checks were not in the rulebooks and relatively rare in modules or home-brews in the old school. They go against the core of what RPGs were understood to be.

>>51612809

Backstories inform roleplay. Knowing who your character gives you a better grounding in who they are and how they will react to things in the world.

>>51612891
Backstories limit character development. Your PC's story develops out of his history of being played, not what was written about him before he went from a nobody to a PC. You learn who he is through playing him. Roleplay isn't something you "build" just like your character sheet.

>>51612936

Having a foundation to grow from limits development? How in the flying fuck does that make any sense?

I agree that you learn about your characters through playing them, but that doesn't mean you also can't have a backstory to give yourself a place to start.

>>51599546
>GM makes encounters that can't contest casters at all

WOW.

>>51613043

As has been pointed out before, if the GM needs to warp the entire game around what casters can do, that's still a problem with the game, not the GM.

>>51602732
The truth is 3.5/finder can be like that, but unfortunately most GMs naively believe you can throw in all the splat and expect a balanced game.

>>51612957
Because you're playing your character as its predefined backstory is written and now as he developed out of the world.
"I want to play a short-tempered lone wolf with a sweet tooth on a mission to save his village as were all polymorphed into frogs by an evil lich!"
Now you're limited to sticking to these stupid tropes that are artificial and unreactive to the campaign/setting itself. The reason people encourage it for shit roleplayers is because its true that limitations can spur creativity, but it's a crutch that newbies too often become forced to rely on. I feel bad your new guy but it sounds like you and your whole table are already beyond saving.

>>51613142

I'm not even sure what you're talking about at this point. From your perspective what's the 'right' way to do things? Arrive at the table with literally no idea who your character is or their position in the world?

>>51613142
>You can only do things that are defined by the backstory
Do you understand what character growth is? Because it sounds to me like you limit yourself to only roleplaying a character the way they develop after first reacting to the game world and then never change after that.

>>51609800
Backstories aren't really a valid complaint, you don't need them as a DM at all.

>>51613186
No, you tend to form an idea based on your characters stats and class and you'll sometimes coax him towards a vision you had in mind (e.g. Kurt Russel in Escape from New York!).

>>51613192
Of course not, you continue to grow them as they get challenged and experience more of the world. How does not having an indulgent backstory stop them from doing that? Do you also believe no characters without backstories were ever interesting or had stories worth telling? Character with actual stories that they lived through are far more interesting than whatever crap you might've penned.

>>51613186
I think he means (obviously) something along the lines of a simple description as opposed to a "backstory". No one gives a fuck about who you were until they know who you are.

>>51613288

>No, you tend to form an idea based on your characters stats and class and you'll sometimes coax him towards a vision you had in mind (e.g. Kurt Russel in Escape from New York!).

So... A backstory. Maybe not a long, comprehensive or complete one, but that's still a backstory.

>>51613303
Don't be sophistic, you know what I mean.

>>51613344

I really don't. You seem to be drawing a distinction where none exists.

To a degree I do agree with you. Having a long, complete backstory for a character is generally a bit limiting, but I also don't think you need to turn up with a handful of vague thoughts. A brief history with enough definition to make them make sense as a person but enough grey areas to give you and the GM some wiggle room in play is my ideal.

But at this point it isn't a question about whether or not backstories are good or bad, it's just how much depth and detail you prefer to have as a player and a GM, and that's entirely a matter of personal preference and opinion.

>>51613377
>But at this point it isn't a question about whether or not backstories are good or bad, it's just how much depth and detail you prefer to have as a player and a GM
Only because you're conflating 'character' (as in personality, image etc) with backstory. A backstory is his plot and history before reaching the table, story is his plot afterwards.

And having one line of backstory "He's a noble that fell into debt" is obviously not what I mean when I'm saying backstory is unnecessary, I mean penning a whole page and whatever else you're encouraging.

How can you possibly sincerely think that
>you're playing your character as its predefined backstory is written and now as he developed out of the world... limited to sticking to these stupid tropes that are artificial and unreactive to the campaign/setting itself
could apply to
>noble that fell into debt
?


>it's just how much depth and detail you prefer to have as a player and a GM
No, the depth is the same in both camps. The degree lies between organic/artificial development.

As a GM, character backstories are the best.

I always ask my players for them because it gives me clear signs of what they want in a game. Those backstory elements they come up with are things I can incorporate into the world to give them directly useful plot hooks that help them be engaged in events. If a character already has things that they care about, are involved in or connected to it makes the job of engaging them and giving them interesting things to do a lot easier. If anything, it makes it easier for them to grow and develop because they already have links to the world to build on.

>>51613583

>Only because you're conflating 'character' (as in personality, image etc) with backstory. A backstory is his plot and history before reaching the table, story is his plot afterwards.

I guess I just don't really see the difference. A persons personality and appearance is shaped by their experiences and life up until that point. Having one without the other seems rather nonsensical.

>>51613734
Sure, but is it necessary to have the backstory for that penned? Consider a western, do we EVER get anyone's backstory? We still have iconic and distinct characters, we still have memorable stories, but it's all in the present, not in the past, and it's all in action, not talk.

>>51613705

This.

Having a good idea of a character's goals and values helps you shape things to better suit their preferred playstyles and what they enjoy.

It's also good for inspiring good moments of roleplaying when a character comes back to their hometown after a while of adventuring, or comes across somebody from their past.

Not only that, but backstories help explain WHY a character does what they do. It makes sense that a Ranger who spent the first five years of his adulthood as a lumberjack before becoming an innawoods loner is more likely to use an axe than a sword

File: [swords].jpg (48KB, 580x894px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 580x894px

>>51598393
>I am playing a tank
>completely ignores attack of opportunity mechanics, taunts, feats that let him take hits for others etc
>his entire build is centered about having high AC
every fucking time

>>51614150

Being fair, D&D (outside of 4e) has shit mechanics to actually let tanking be a thing. It's usually trivial to ignore them and always target the weaker party members unless the GM actively plays along.

>>51614150
Wizards / Clerics in D&D at least are unironically better tanks than any warrior because they can spam mad buffs on the party and use things like Protection from Spells, Force Wall and Prismatic Sphere as defensive tools

>>51613106
Core is worse than any splat outright.

>>51595077
What's the point of builds?

If you give players choices, but some choices are strictly superior to others then why even give them the choice in the first place?

Same thing if all the choices are equally balanced. What's the point?

>>51598393
Damage Per Standard-Action is legitimate measure as long as you cont it vs a fixed AC with no DR. It gets more skewing otherwise.

>>51614686

>If you give players choices, but some choices are strictly superior to others then why even give them the choice in the first place?

Because as long as the difference is small enough for every choice to be viable, it doesn't matter, and giving players a choice of mechanically distinct options has value and makes the mechanical side of the system more engaging.

>Same thing if all the choices are equally balanced. What's the point?

Because equally balanced does not mean 'the same'. See above with reference to why having a variety of mechanically distinct options is a good thing.

>>51614686
To give players different roles and different areas to shine in.

If everyone is just a person that does everything as well as everyone else does everything, that's boring.
The sweet spot is to have separate areas that different character excel at to different degrees.

>>51614773
Powergamers like you are cancer.

Why don't you just go back to playing WoW or League?

File: autistic-screeching-5886f4480e746.jpg (10KB, 235x211px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 235x211px

>>51601322
>>51601984
>>51602200
>>51602461
>>51602633
>>51602762
>>51603253
>pic related

>>51603087
Playing a game that reliant on fictional positioning and DM fiat sounds like absolute shit. I want a little more substance to my games then that.

>>51603902
At that point it's still a restriction in the sense that if I don't want to sit there and argue with my DM over some disagreement we have over my own character concept then it's not going to happen. The idea of set skills establishes a shared buy in from everyone at the table that these are the define abilities and limitations of my character within the given mechanics. Given your game design, you could argue and fictionally position yourself into any situation, given you wanted to bloviate and piss off everyone at the table enough. "What do you mean I don't know how to lock pick a door as an uneducated barbarian!? I read a manual about it back in town, and actually in my character's backstory, he was like, educated and civilized by a thieves guild, so yeah, suck it nerd. I can totally pick that lock."

>>51615086
>Playing a game that reliant on fictional positioning and DM fiat sounds like absolute shit. I want a little more substance to my games then that.

See:
>>51601322
>Learn to play your character, not your sheet
Then get back to me.

>>51615198

You keep repeating that phrase, but you've done nothing to actually say it means anything.

>>51615267
The block of posts that apparently resulted in you screeching autistically is exactly that discussion.

>>51615198
>REEEEE people have fun in different ways than me.
I enjoy builds for the same reason I enjoy other mechanics of games. It is fun to explore and play different mechanical options.

>>51615198
>I'm a 50 year old virgin and anything new is bad
Fuck yourself. I play games as Cyberpunk 2020, 1 ed Vampire, GURPS 3rd, etc.

Your Stormwind Fallacy argument is transparent and wrong, and the OSR is shit for anything other then very lethal and boring dungeon crawls.

>>51615429
To be fair, OSR can work for good roleplaying, but then again so can literally anything. With crunchy systems you can have good roleplaying, with rules light systems you can have good roleplaying, with actually shitty systems you can still have good roleplaying, even with no system at all you can freeform and have good roleplaying.

>>51615399
Sure, I've stated I respect that and see the appeal in builds but it's sad to not know anything besides it. Also, there's nothing contradictory about both respecting some people have different tastes for their entertainment and recognizing their traits are cancerous for the industry or stem from poorly thought out design. Repeating FUN IS RELATIVE! is a meaningless and irrelevant point.

>>51615601
What if I sai that fun isn't entoirely relative, your fun is just wrong? Or rather that your understanding of how the things we're discussing affect fun is lacking? The things you imagine to somehow hinder or restrict roleplaying don't actually do that. It's as simple as that.

>>51615639
What if I said no one was discussing fun? That we can discuss things on a level beyond measuring one single emotion?

>The things you imagine to somehow hinder or restrict roleplaying don't actually do that.
I made my points why I believe it does, you're free to refute them or provide your own.

>>51614174
3e at least has Thicket of Blades shenanigans. You want to go by me? Enjoy taking a ton of AoO's

>>51615601
How the fuck is preferring mechanics to roleplaying cancerous? If anything it endorses more balanced and well rounded systems so that people can better explore different options without feeling useless.

File: rule7.jpg (22KB, 314x341px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 314x341px

The first post in this thread was literally baitfish.

Why are we even continuing to discuss this?

>>51595000
Talking about your characters traits, history, background and potential actions/reactions is metagaming because only what is observed IC should be considered by the other players.

So you talk about builds instead.

>>51614830
That's not even remotely powergaming, you blithering retard.

>>51616306
Also, its wrong, anyway. Its not mechanical vs roleplay, both are fucking roleplay, and that fuck is trying to make one sound dirty.

Its mechanics vs freeplay.

>>51616546
I don't see how the thread is bait. Powergaming is a topic that is brought up a lot.

>>51620208

But talking about how you build your characters does not necessitate powergaming.

>>51615429
>Stormwind Fallacy

Rollplayers throw this shit around like it's their checkmate argument, but it's not. The fact is that most rollplayers are shit at roleplaying. They'll always choose the power option over what makes most sense within the game universe, and their characters have obvious, contrived backstories backformed to fit their power build. Yes, rollplayers don't HAVE to be bad at roleplay - but most of them are. It's probably why they rollplay in the first place.

So while the Stormwind Fallacy is technically a fallacy, the reality on the ground is that rollplayers make for a shittier game narrative.

>>51620312

Anecdotal evidence without any justification or logic is worth literally nothing.

>>51620350
>Anecdotal evidence
Yeah why don't we pull out the University of Pennsylvania Scientific Journal of Roleplaying Quality

>>51620396
Because I can provide just as much anecdotal evidence as you, and mine points the other way.

>>51620396

Better idea- Let's not make sweeping generalisations based on personal experience because they will always be questionable at best.

>>51620312
Okay? Pretty much every time I've seen a player fuck up a game they've also been a mechanically inept shitter who refused to learn anything because they didn't want to 'minmax'.

>>51613201
I disagree, even a basic backstory that explains the who, what, when, where, why, and how can give the DM ideas that could help set up a decent jumping off point to endear the player(s) to a setting.

Like my DM for a 5e game we just started used my background as a pirate to say that we were all a crew on a pirate ship to explain why we were on this island in the middle of the ocean. Everyone else was okay with it and it helped us avoid the awkward "how do we all know each other and why are we here" bullshit that usually plagues a first session.

>>51620301
OK, but building characters has always been a topic on /tg/.

>>51595000
I'm detecting some serious swine in this thread. Don't make me take...measures.