I agree with Soly that things need to be mostly shown and not told, and that interweaving backstory and inspiration and gameplay is more intriguing to read. I also agree that a good build need not have a story at all. I just tend to prefer the ones that do. So, different categories? I don’t know. How complicated is that to set up? Would a tag signifying role playing or glitch exploitation or the like work just as well? And yeah, I’ve read some that are really evenly split between the two. It might be very tough to make that kind of decision, honestly. I mean, I know which side mine would fall under, but if some of the builders here really had to choose between the two, it might be very tough, indeed.

Eh, it was more of a hypothetical but in theory it wouldn't be too difficult to put into practise and honestly not something that would be strictly enforced unless people were obviously posting them incorrectly (a build with a 5000 word backstory for example would not be in the 'Combat' section). It also wouldn't be done for older builds so they'd all be 'Character Builds' unless the author changed them so that cuts a lot of effort that I don't think would help much.

But there would be benefits. Theoretically I could run two events, one for 'Character Builds' and one for 'Roleplaying Builds' (or whatever terms you'd want to use) allowing people to build around either mechanics or Lore/Roleplaying ideas depending on which Event they want to participate in. But yeah, largely just a hypothetical idea meant to encourage conversation about the balance of Roleplaying, Character and Gameplay in a build. 

[blockquote][b][url=/profile/Dragonborn1721]Dragonborn2021[/url] said:[/b]

I agree with Soly that things need to be mostly shown and not told, and that interweaving backstory and inspiration and gameplay is more intriguing to read. I also agree that a good build need not have a story at all. I just tend to prefer the ones that do. So, different categories? I don’t know. How complicated is that to set up? Would a tag signifying role playing or glitch exploitation or the like work just as well? And yeah, I’ve read some that are really evenly split between the two. It might be very tough to make that kind of decision, honestly. I mean, I know which side mine would fall under, but if some of the builders here really had to choose between the two, it might be very tough, indeed.

Eh, it was more of a hypothetical but in theory it wouldn't be too difficult to put into practise and honestly not something that would be strictly enforced unless people were obviously posting them incorrectly (a build with a 5000 word backstory for example would not be in the 'Combat' section). It also wouldn't be done for older builds so they'd all be 'Character Builds' unless the author changed them so that cuts a lot of effort that I don't think would help much.

But there would be benefits. Theoretically I could run two events, one for 'Character Builds' and one for 'Roleplaying Builds' (or whatever terms you'd want to use) allowing people to build around either mechanics or Lore/Roleplaying ideas depending on which Event they want to participate in. But yeah, largely just a hypothetical idea meant to encourage conversation about the balance of Roleplaying, Character and Gameplay in a build. 

[/blockquote]

This is long, sorry. I'm pulling a Deebs. :D

Exactly, to quote the above, what if you're one of the builders that would face a touigh choice? What if you're a builder that successfully marries the two? What event do those people do then? What is your category? I am never for things that segregate or alienate groups, because then you pigeon-hole people, you know?  Well, there's a neat rp build event that I love the theme for, but damn, I can't do it because I build more mechanically, or vis versa. I dunno, it would make me build less, not more, because I would second guess where I fit in the scheme of CB, and I would be checking my work to make sure I followed a certain category and that really would suck away all the creativity, don't you think?  Because I'm not going to change how I do things, except if I change because I change personally as a builder, which I have done quite a bit. I think the current categories are fine. If people lack gameplay components in their builds and they're not really making builds, they have several options to remedy that. 

1.work on that aspect by either consulting builders who are good at gameplay, doing some reading, extra playtesting, or whatever. Put your stuff on the workshop, that sort of thing.

2. write rp profiles, then you don't need to worry about "OMGERD! I don't know how to approach the gameplay". I think rp profiles are awesome (I have one that I really adore that I made with a small group and my other was better served acctually by the build she started as and I'm not even keen to keep her  rp profile, because well, I said everything I wanted to say about her in the build, to be honest). And yet, rp profiles sometimes get treated sort of like the evil step sister because people want to make "builds" oooooo builds because builds get the all the likes and the noteriety. No, honestly, I'd much rather see a kick ass rp profile than a build that is missing what fundementally describes a build. It is maybe a perception that we need to change. If you see that maybe the build your working on isn't really a build, make it an rp profile. Or make it a blog or make it a modder's log. Sometimes making something fit into a category where it doesn't really belong is detrimental to both rp and gameplay. I dunno, people may not agree with me and that's fine. 

But again, who am I to say what one should put in a build?  I don't consider myself qualified to make that judgement. I put backstories in my builds, though they aren't as long as people would think they are and not actually longer than what I see currently trending.  My Winter Bear has the largest backstory, 1700 words total, but it's interspersed throughout the build to prevent wall of text syndrome. Probably that build and the other three that will constitute the series that it's a part of would qualify as the more rp/story oriented builds that we are considering branching into, though I'm always thinking mechanics. The Autumn Snake from that series will see the unusual combo of Restoration + Necomancy, so again, I'm really thinking gameplay. 

My other builds that I could count, average with around 300 word backstories, so rather short actually (yes, I sat on my ass, drinking my coffee this morning and actually did the word counts). My Agents of Oegnithr doesn't actually have a backstory, just a brief  explanation of the concept of Oegnithr and the Outsider's backstory is just too interspersed with the other mechanics of the build to really count. It was divided into chapters (similar to Breath of Kyne) for the gameplay and I really designed it to be a story you could play, so very different organization.  My builds tend to have heavy rp, but I also pay close attention to gameplay mechanics and ensure that they synergize well within the rp and lore components that I'm working with.  

Frankly, I'd feel a bit stifled if we tried to break down builds into further categories. Because I like doing some crazy shit that marries everything together.  

[blockquote][b][url=/profile/Paws]Paws[/url] said:[/b]

*snip*

...it is, mostly, just a build - a scaffold or skeleton that NoSnakess invites the reader to add to.

*snip*

[/blockquote]

You know, I've actually never liked backstory in a build, like at all. I'll admit it. I hate the very idea. It's here to stay, and I'm fine with that; I get that a lot of people do like it and I'm the exception. I like to think I'm pretty reasonable about it. But I hate it. And this discussion actually got me to thinking about just why it irks me so, and trying to put a rather nebulous feeling into words.

I don't think any two people RP the same. In fact, pretty much no two playthroughs of the game go the same, even with the same player behind the controller. Because of that, I will admit, I get rather annoyed when builds try to tell me how to RP down to the little details. Again, yeah, this is probably just me being me.

Now, clearly I'm not saying that RP-centric builds have no place or are automatically bad. And again, I want to make it really, really clear, I'm definitely in the minority when it comes to my opinion on the amount of RP and backstory to include in a build, which itself is an opinion-centric thing with no strictly right or wrong answer. I don't want to discourage any of the RP-centric builders we have. It's a valid viewpoint. Just not mine.

This is where Paws' "skeleton" analogy comes in. I'd appropriate it, but I took it a little too far when I was writing this post ("meat, bones and brain") and it got a little disgusting so I'm changing the analogy. Thanks for the idea anyway!

Let's compare a great playthrough to playing a great song, except that everyone's instrument is somewhere between slightly different and very different. Sharing a build, then, is like sharing the awesome song that you played. You can't share too little, or other musicians can't play the song or get inspired by it. On the other hand, you can't share too much, either, because everyone else's instrument is somehow different from yours. The best way you play your song accounts for the quirks of your instrument. Share too much of your song, and other musicians can only chase a pale echo of it, like trying to play an electric guitar solo on a harmonica. What you should do, then, is offer enough of the song that they can play it on their own instrument and make it theirs. How much to share depends on the individual song, but there is always a limit of "too little", and there is always a limit of "too much".

Too much hyperbole? Yeah, maybe. I'm a little tired, I hope the point gets across.

I guess in the end, my view can be summarised as such: I don't want to play your character. I want to play my character, with your build.

[blockquote][b][url=/profile/Ilanisilver]ilanisilver[/url] said:[/b] @DB, I could see that, in events. Like Liss said, it would suck if they were themed so someone might not feel able to participate in a really great theme (like the music-inspired one, for example), but yeah, especially if they’re judged contests? I bet it would be so much easier to design the rubric if people concentrated on one or the other. I mean, I’ve seen play against type events, Perk one skill events...having an event like this would be less restrictive than those, really.[/blockquote]

No, what I was talking about before were the thoughts on splitting people into types of builders and categorizing builds further, which is what was being discussed. Should builds be further branched from the standard "Character Build" into the sub categories "Roleplaying Build" versus "Combat build". At least that is what I'm understanding from Deebs' original post. For people like me, that try to do both in one build, sub-categories will just be frustrating, but who knows, others may like it. Like I said, I already stated solutions to people who struggle with some of the aspects of making a build an actual build. Character builds, IMO, should stay character builds and while occasionally I do merge formatting and concepts, my builds are still fundamentally builds. 

At least that is what I understood. I wasn't actually addressing Events, Ilani.  I am perhaps am not communicating clearly. 

But since you brought up events, two specifically that I ran with Vargr, I think I'll address it. I think the marked success of Against Type and Two in Two attest to people wanting events like that. It's the challenge of restriction, which appeal to some players, including myself, but may not appeal to others. Clearly the amount of people who built for those events didn't find it restrictive in the way you are implying. But I will readily admit that those two events were more "gameplay" oriented and tried to avoid the crutches that people usually rely on when playing a certain race (Breton magic sponges anyone?) or making you think on your feet on how to create something viable to play endgame when you can't again rely on standard gameplay mechanics. That's not to say that there isn't room for the more free events, I enjoy those too, but balance is always good, no?

However, I actually think judged contests should be even more restrictive. They need to be restrictive, they need to be hard, something that a builder aspires too.  Create the fire in the belly, so to speak. Not be mean, that's not what I say. Competitions turn mean because of the people participating in them not the competition itself.

Contest: an event in which people compete for supremacy in a sport, activity, or particular quality.

So, in my eyes, the rubric needs to be the same for everyone participating, you get me? And while Deebs made a great rubric, it was a mechanical rubric, not a contest rubric. In fact, when Vargr and I were discussing potentially reintroducing contests when we hosted CB, we were thinking about giving people such restrictions, build based on these skills, this race, and then show us what you can do. You level the playing field that way in a way a less restrictive event cannot do. I mean how the heck do you judge a combat-oriented assassin in the same way you judge a heavy rp knight? You can't, at least not fairly in my eyes, people's biases play too hard into it. And to me, that has been the huge flaw in all of CB's past contests, and I've participated in them. We are not really assessing build skill  in these contests because the overall rubric, or possibly even theme is a better word, is far too general. So you set the restrictions. Say, build an Orc build that uses x, y, and z skills. Or everybody try to recreate Batman in Skyrim. It's more restrictive and at the same time, it's liberating in a way because you would all be judged the same. It would also give Deebs way less work because instead of having to judge 10 totally different builds, he'd have to look at 10 similar builds 

I mean, I looked at all the builds from the last contest and  I honestly can't judge the builds presented. I can like some more than others, but I can't judge them. They are all so different.  You see these big builds, double builds, huge backstories, and if I had thrown my build into the ring, you would've gotten a one-skill with a level 22 cap. How do you evaluate one against the other, you know? Both have their merits. 

I dunno, some food for thought I guess. 

[blockquote][b][url=/profile/Ilanisilver]ilanisilver[/url] said:[/b] @DB, I could see that, in events. Like Liss said, it would suck if they were themed so someone might not feel able to participate in a really great theme (like the music-inspired one, for example), but yeah, especially if they’re judged contests? I bet it would be so much easier to design the rubric if people concentrated on one or the other. I mean, I’ve seen play against type events, Perk one skill events...having an event like this would be less restrictive than those, really.[/blockquote]

That's true, I think the current rubric was pretty fair in that even if your build's gameplay or roleplay was a little under developed, you'd be able to pick it up in other areas making for a fairly balanced overall spectrum. But honestly, if I could design a rubric based on Roleplaying Builds and another based on Gameplay Builds that would've made my job a lot easier in designing the rubrics.

The Gameplay Contest would probably be something like... 40 Presentation, 50 Gameplay, 10 Character work (which is more focused on the character being short, sweet and working with the Gameplay)

The Roleplaying Contest would be 40 Presentation, 50 Roleplaiyng, 10 Combat (which, again is more focused on just being...you know Perks and a description of how to fight enemies).

It'd make it a lot more interesting to kind of...create categories and then judge people based on what they want to be judged on. Sure, I could see flaws, that's why this is a hypothetical discussion rather than me saying "Alright everyone, here's the changes we'll be implementing in the next month, have your say" but, yeah definitely some easier ways I could go about running Contests.

I also don't think it's worth subdividing builds. Lots of builds don't fall neatly into one or the other. How much backstory detail you go into is kind of a spectrum. Character building is a personal thing, noone is getting paid for this lol, so folks should do what they see fit and what ignites their passion. I wouldn't worry too much about categorising it.

The broad category of 'roleplaying' covers some very different approaches. Tthere's roleplaying as creating a general theme or role, where you get to fill in the specifics. The character doesn't have a name, and individual backstories could be filled into the general idea. Then there's the description of an individual story, which is becoming more popular. If they are well written that's great and entertaining, but I would never go out and play one as written - that would be like playing someone elses tabletop RPG character. Which would be like wearing someone elses underwear.

I don't want to play your character. I want to play my character, with your build.

This, exactly. Which is not to say I don't ever want to read about your character.

I quite like having a build with a link to an RP profile. That way it's there to be read as additional inspiration, but doesn't make the build huge.

Slight tangent - but what I'd like to see and what I'm going to try and do in future, is make the build's summary both brief and comprehensive, so that someone recreating the build could just print that out on a single page and run with it as a checklist, and not have to keep referring back to a build that is too large and image heavy to print or easily search through.

This, exactly. Which is not to say I don't ever want to read about your character.

I quite like having a build with a link to an RP profile. That way it's there to be read as additional inspiration, but doesn't make the build huge.

Slight tangent - but what I'd like to see and what I'm going to try and do in future, is make the build's summary both brief and comprehensive, so that someone recreating the build could just print that out on a single page and run with it as a checklist, and not have to keep referring back to a build that is too large and image heavy to print or easily search through.

Since this is more off-topic (and I'm trying to avoid jumping into the debate because that makes it seem like I'm pushing an opinion), I really want to respond to it. I think I'm growing more and more fond of the idea of linking Roleplaying Profiles with Character Builds, or even moving in Short Stories like what Ilani has recently done which has made her Dark Mirror a really stand out character, not just a stand-out build. I think it's something I might want to experiment with in the future, and would definitely encourage people to get into doing themselves.

This summery sounds interesting to be honest. I don't quite have a full idea of where your going with it, would love to see an example with the Wildmage, but it's definitely something that sounds interesting, just hitting the most important points and making a playable character that is presented as compactly as possible. Could be very interesting to develop that as a core idea of a build.