This thread made me think about creating PCs.
It seems, and I have experienced this a lot of times, that there are two different ways to approach a new pc you want to play.
Rules-wise, or Story-wise.
Its very rare to have a player, wo comes to me, with a picture of a pc, complete with a background, with flaws and fears, things that motivate him, etc., that is not perfectly min/maxed.
Normally players come and say they found out a great combo of combining X with Z, which makes a great pc, who should be able to easily do Y.
What I, as a long-time GM (I am dming for over 30 years now) experienced time and time again is, that players see the rules only as a way to find loop-holes, or ways to built the (technically) best character one can have.
This is sad, as the rules are open enough to play a lot of styles.
I always try to tell my players to first come up with an idea of a person they want to play, not looking at the rules, until the vision of the pc is completed.
It's not bad to not have the best values in attributes you could possibly have according to the rules. Because, if the players don't try to get the most out of the rules, the GM certainly has an easier time during play. Not to kill them off, but to challenge them.
So, what I mean, in the end, is probably (I don't know if I managed to get along what I mean, english is still hard, but...):
I, as the GM don't like it, when players show me the class, prestige class and other rules stuff they want to play. I love it, when a player says, I envisioned a person, who is/can/loves to, etc.
This makes it so much easier to run the game in a lot of ways. Being that incorporating the pcs into the storyline of the campaign, or properly challenge the pcs.
What did you guys experience, think of this...