[0.9]The Case for Standard Builds

I think Standard Builds are great for LARPs, because you don't play LARPs on paper, you play them on the field. Six seconds of combat isn't discussed over several minutes of dice rolls and rules references; it's handled in six seconds. If we add time via Hold to process rules references, this is seen as a detractor, not an accepted occurrence.

Thus, it's my feeling that while enough variation must exist to allow players to experience the game in their own way, individual flavor must also come at the How You Use It level. For example; many players may have X Weapon Profs, but their fighting styles may be difference, and thus create flavor. Many players may have Legerdemain, but approach traps differently.

Alliance is pretty diverse in the fact that it has a Build Point economy; no skill is prohibited to a character, their costs are simply different based on class. Versatility is -designed- to be inefficient; it's intended to encourage social teamwork. That Fighter might have Read Magic and/or Alchemy; that puts some tricks up their sleeve, but now they're not as deep in Fighting skills as they could have been. Whether or not it's worth it isn't really based on some magical value of Alchemy/RM, honestly. It's purely based on whether or not that Player enjoys it and whether their team needs it.

This is why I feel Paragons are wrong for Alliance. It's not that I don't believe characters need flair and flavor, it's that I feel that we shouldn't make what's on their Character Sheet central to that flavor.
 
I think it's pretty obvious what my stance on this is, haha. I like variety and flavor....so more options the better, in my mind.

Although, I am curious: You would prefer the removal of magic items. What would you do for loot outside of potions/alchemy/weapons/coin (which I feel would have a lot less value without magic items to spend the coin on, haha)?
 
I think it's pretty obvious what my stance on this is, haha. I like variety and flavor....so more options the better, in my mind.

Although, I am curious: You would prefer the removal of magic items. What would you do for loot outside of potions/alchemy/weapons/coin (which I feel would have a lot less value without magic items to spend the coin on, haha)?

I think Adam (Avaran) was referring to the removal of magic items that are removed via 2.0, not the complete removal of magic items. I could be wrong, but I -think- that's what he means.
 
I think Adam (Avaran) was referring to the removal of magic items that are removed via 2.0, not the complete removal of magic items. I could be wrong, but I -think- that's what he means.

That would make a lot more sense!
 
I think it's pretty obvious what my stance on this is, haha. I like variety and flavor....so more options the better, in my mind.

Although, I am curious: You would prefer the removal of magic items. What would you do for loot outside of potions/alchemy/weapons/coin (which I feel would have a lot less value without magic items to spend the coin on, haha)?

Making coin useful beyond fueling production has been an on-going headscratcher for a long time now. :)
 
To me flavor is made by the player of that character. You can give everyone the same stat card and they will play it differently. They will play their character the way they want, making it theirs. The stat card doesn't make the character...the player does
 
-
 
Last edited:
-
 
Last edited:
To me flavor is made by the player of that character. You can give everyone the same stat card and they will play it differently. They will play their character the way they want, making it theirs. The stat card doesn't make the character...the player does

This. For example, we have a Scout class, but a stealthy-minded player could absolutely take a Fighter build, but play his character like the archetypical Ranger. Another player could take the same or similar build, and use it as a frontline soldier type. Yet another could have the same build, but play more of a foppish duelist.

Three characters that feel worlds different, but have nearly the same stats, if not the exact same.
 
I don't like the idea of a standardized build. Taking away flexibility and customization from players is not something that I can imagine ever supporting.

Yes, players will play things different ways, but removing that flexibility removes the range of play from options.

If there's standard abilities and effects that players are even expected to take, they should be built into races and classes, not have players poured into a mold of "You're playing X, so you are being told you're buying Y."
 
My biggest worry about a standardized build is the one we've already discussed elsewhere: boxing in all earth scholars as healbots.

We're already well on our way towards that, unfortunately. One of the primary reasons several are fighting as hard as they are to get them some sort of Wand-equivalent.
 
Like I mentioned: If there's trademark or expected things a Class or Race are expected to have, I feel those should be included in the Class or Race for free / as a character grows, not an expected purchase.
 
Like I mentioned: If there's trademark or expected things a Class or Race are expected to have, I feel those should be included in the Class or Race for free / as a character grows, not an expected purchase.

I think the only way to really achieve true customization is to have a classless system, and that's something I think detracts from the team-building/social aspect of Alliance.

As an example: in many sports, individual players are expected to fill specific roles and have skills to fit those roles. That guy who wants to run the ball might be a little bigger in exchange for a bit of speed, but not so much that he's basically your benchwarmer on your draft team. The ruleset allows players to customize skills, but via the class system, it incentivizes team play by giving them nice discounts on skills inside a package. Some players want to break the mold, and go outside of that box, and the system says "Cool, you can do that. It's just gonna cost you in the form of tariffs." Which it really is, cuz you're importing skills from Roguesville to Fightertown.

But because it's inefficient, it's not ultra-popular. It allows for different theories on what constitutes "Best Build," and that's great. It also allows people who go outside the box to feel special sometimes, because occasionally they have The Right Tool in situations they wouldn't have otherwise.
 
To go back to what @Avaran asked (admittedly on a different-but-similar topic), why would that/this be called Alliance, still? If a rules set changes it so thoroughly and vastly that it isn't the same game, why claim it is? Classless or 'Standard Build' would both do just that -- make Alliance something so far from what it is, that it isn't anymore.
 
-
 
Last edited:
Different people enjoy different things about LARP. Gamerists I don't think would enjoy this type of simple system while I think narrativist wouldn't care. I think we need to take into account all types of players and not assume that all players want the same thing.

http://leavingmundania.com/2011/12/19/the-three-fold-theories/
 
One of the most beautiful things about the Alliance system is that it gives you the illusion of significant choice without actually offering a lot of significant choices.

Illusion of choice is basically just as good as actual choice for the vast majority of players. In general, players want to feel like they have as much freedom as possible while designing their character. The Alliance system creates the perception, and as is true in most things in life, perception is all that really matters.

As someone behind desk, though, who has analyzed this system for decades (though, honestly, I was able to see between the lines after only a few years), I know that the actual variance between characters of roughly equal level (ignoring magic items and uber-rituals) is relatively minimal. The reason is because no matter how creative you are, it is basically impossible to push a character significantly higher than the baseline character for a specific class (baseline defined as the "cookie cutter" build with about 10% - 20% of experience spent on roleplay / cornercase racials).

There are a few well known options for pushing the envelope. These includes things like a 1-dot celestial pyramid for non-casters, 3 ranks of alchemy, and a shield for casters. But that list is pretty close to exclusive and none of these options breaks the game so hard that it is hard to estimate the ceiling for power level of a PC of a specific level.

The only real potential problem is heavily underpowered characters. However, since the advent of fluid classing, these characters are almost always a result of intentional focus towards roleplay over combat, rather than poor system mastery. I'm not saying poor system mastery can't make a character hard to judge. There are, for example, a few "sour spots" for build spent ratios for cross class builds (templars, scouts, and adepts). But that type of terrible unintentional terrible build is few and far between.

In short, while the rules technically let you build any character you want, in the vast majority of cases I can gauge relative combat potential just by knowing the level and class of a character. Meaningful variance between characters is incredibly rare, even when their builds look very different on paper. It is very convenient for people who run the game.

-MS

P.S. - Normally I'd be wary of posting something like this to the Alliance boards, because it is the kind of thing that might annoy certain types of players, but I'm pretty sure that just about anyone posting to or reading this forum should be comfortable with this concept.

P.P.S. - In case it wasn't clear, I believe standardized builds are effectively already a part of this game. Furthermore, I believe that nothing I have seen in 2.0 (including paragon paths) changes that statement.
 
Back
Top