[0.9]The Case for Standard Builds

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.

I tend to disagree with this heavily on a philosophy of game level, because it comes at the game from the perspective that a streamlined build is the expected norm.

That does a really huge disservice to the possibilities inherent in the game, and bleeds over into scaling until that norm is what is needed to be successful mechanically, which pushes out other options as players get tired of not being up to snuff.
 
I tend to disagree with this heavily on a philosophy of game level, because it comes at the game from the perspective that a streamlined build is the expected norm.

That does a really huge disservice to the possibilities inherent in the game, and bleeds over into scaling until that norm is what is needed to be successful mechanically, which pushes out other options as players get tired of not being up to snuff.

Actually, Chris, you are misunderstanding me completely. I don't expect a streamlined build is the norm. What I am saying is that a streamlined build doesn't really offer a significant benefit over a build that just meanders along. The system is designed such that there is a very wide path that results in similar enough abilities (even if, on paper, the builds look different) that as far as mechanic wonks are concerned, they are effectively the same build.

That really is the key. An alchemist and spell caster look very different on paper. In practice, not so much. The same is true for an archer and a celestial wand/burst user (current system, not talking 2.0). They are mechanically similar enough to have minimal effect on scaling. But from the perspective of the average player, that doesn't really focus on the minutae of mechanics, these builds look very different (and unquestionably represent different role playing opportunities).

The real advantage, though, comes not by looking at how hard it is to optimize, but how difficult it is to make a bad build. It is very hard to make a terrible build by accident. It was a lot easier before fluid classing, but thankfully some genius introduced that idea.

For example, you can build a pyramid user instead of a column user. This is suboptimal. But it is only modestly suboptimal and not really bad. Furthermore, because of how the system works, it becomes LESS suboptimal as you gain levels and your pyramid gets a broader base. Similarly, as a fighting class, you could spend build on weapon master, style master, thrown weapon, and archery. This is suboptimal for pretty much every character. However, by early teens in level, the poorly spent build is mostly invisible (comparable to levels of weak racials or Craftsman skills most characters have). And because fluid classing exists, most suboptimal builds stop being suboptimal just by a change in class.

Truly bad builds are difficult to make and are almost always obviously bad. There is a big warning sign on artisan and production skills that basically says "not for combat." Just about the only trap that a person might reasonably fall into is trying to get an earth and celestial column before level 10.

And that is the important point. When you make it hard to create a really bad build that is a good thing. This is something that MMORPGs have literally done studies on (and since they have 100s of thousands of players, they have a darn good sample size). Building an awful build with your first character is one of the highest factors that correlates to players quitting the game. It is why most MMORPGs work tirelessly to make sure that no build can be awful. Alliance, whether by intent or lucky coincidence (I suspect a little of both, weighted towards the latter) has a system where building a truly bad character is hard and this is very good (tm) thing.

-MS
 
Last edited:
As an example of what I am talking about, I am going to discuss a team at my local game: Black Forest.

These guys have been playing for years. Their system mastery is through the roof. In terms of efficiency of character builds, I don't think any other team in the game compares. However, for all that min-maxing (both at the individual level and a the team level, which is really impressive system mastery), ignoring magic items, they are only maybe 10% more effective than equal level teams, purely based mechanics.

However, they are almost certainly the most powerful team by a far margin. This has much less to do with character builds and much more to do with out of game skill. Their fighters are honed. Dave could probably beat me in a duel if he had 1 body, no armor, and no PTD skills or defenses left while I had 100 body, 30 armor, and an eviscerate. They also have remarkable skill (as individuals and as a team) at resource management.

And the point here is that they would still be the dominant team even if they were saddled with poorly build characters (maybe not bad characters, there is only so much you can do with nothing but levels of potion making and wear extra armor).

-MS
 
Actually, Chris, you are misunderstanding me completely. I don't expect a streamlined build is the norm. What I am saying is that a streamlined build doesn't really offer a significant benefit over a build that just meanders along. The system is designed such that there is a very wide path that results in similar enough abilities (even if, on paper, the builds look different) that as far as mechanic wonks are concerned, they are effectively the same build.

That really is the key. An alchemist and spell caster look very different on paper. In practice, not so much. The same is true for an archer and a celestial wand/burst user (current system, not talking 2.0). They are mechanically similar enough to have minimal effect on scaling. But from the perspective of the average player, that doesn't really focus on the minutae of mechanics, these builds look very different (and unquestionably represent different role playing opportunities).

The real advantage, though, comes not by looking at how hard it is to optimize, but how difficult it is to make a bad build. It is very hard to make a terrible build by accident. It was a lot easier before fluid classing, but thankfully some genius introduced that idea.

For example, you can build a pyramid user instead of a column user. This is suboptimal. But it is only modestly suboptimal and not really bad. Furthermore, because of how the system works, it becomes LESS suboptimal as you gain levels and your pyramid gets a broader base. Similarly, as a fighting class, you could spend build on weapon master, style master, thrown weapon, and archery. This is suboptimal for pretty much every character. However, by early teens in level, the poorly spent build is mostly invisible (comparable to levels of weak racials or Craftsman skills most characters have. And because fluid classing exists, most suboptimal builds stop being suboptimal just by a change in class.

Truly bad builds are difficult to make and are almost always obviously bad. There is a big warning sign on artisan and production skills that basically says "not for combat." Just about the only trap that a person might reasonably fall into is trying to get an earth and celestial column before level 10.

And that is the important point. When you make it hard to create a really bad build that is a good thing. This is something that MMORPGs have literally done studies on (and since they have 100s of thousands of players, they have a darn good sample size). Building an awful build with your first character is one of the highest factors that correlates to players quitting the game. It is why most MMORPGs work tirelessly to make sure that no build can be awful. Alliance, whether by intent or lucky coincidence (I suspect a little of both, weighted towards the latter) has a system where building a truly bad character is hard and this is very good (tm) thing.

-MS

Great point Mike. It's the reason a dodge for a fighter in current rules is so high. Ironically in 2.0 every fighter build I made I would get 2 dodges (non racial).
 
I like diversity and I think it a good thing, standard builds a thing and they will never go away but I think encourging them is not what LARP should be about. When asked for ideas for building a character I do offer them but I always qualify it with "Do what your character would do." diversity is a good thing and should be encourage not discouraged. Also speaking only for myself here, but my job isn't to make Plot's job easy but to make it hard.
 
Back
Top