Stupid finals -- keeping me from doing something truly important, like posting on BG.
@Midnight_v: thanks for the kind words -- I try.
I wanted to post since a bunch of things I've been mulling over the years have come up on this thread and b/c it mentioned the tvtropes wiki, one my other favorite methods of wasting time (after here, the Atomic Thinktank, and the NYT). Also, Bohemond is a good friend. And, no, I didn't play the catamite -- I've played peg-legs and I've played prostitutes, but never both simultaneously -- although I did heartily enjoy a krrf-addicted misogynist mercenary, although probably a character to be played w/ friends lest you develop an unsavory reputation.
I think Caelic has, as usual, the right of it. It's very important that people be "w/in tolerance" of each other. I take it that's what all the tier ranking stuff is supposed to help w/, although I'm skeptical of its ability and tend to look at overall build strength. This takes some finesse, but on those occasions where I play w/ other people I just ask what sort of power level we're playing at and I also try to be as clear about what my character can do as possible and then rely on the DM, or, more frequently my own discretion, to rein things in. But, Midnight_v is right too: D&D is a very "crunch" heavy game. It's organized around action and combat, a group more RP and less rules/gaminess oriented would probably be better served by a more storytelling oriented game. Although I'd be at a loss as to what to suggest to them. I'm an old-school White Wolf player and they're pretty awful, combining opacity, complete lack of balance, and obscure rules into a perfect storm of headaches. That, and I'd rather do actual litigation work than engage in Talmudic debates on rules w/ some WW players -- but I digress.
As Bohemond alludes to, it is good if everyone is on the same page as to what the goals and orientation of the campaign is, and maybe that's all that needs to be done. It also might be worth just suggesting a straightforward baseline -- say a druid w/ PHB and Spell Compendium spells and the Natural Spell feat -- and measuring your character against that. It's ultra-core, so if someone's concerned about your Warblade being overpowered you have a nice agreed upon baseline. As a bonus, it's one that is really permissive, too -- not many Warblades (or whatever) are going to outpace the gold standard, even a pretty naively built one.
I do want to add that I totally get that a lot of people don't enjoy running around and trying out different build ideas or combos. Some people just aren't into that aspect of the game, and I can respect that, along w/ a desire for simplicity in character design and gameplay. But, for what it's worth, I say that's an argument for allowing rather than banning books. E.g., I'm sure if I put my nose to the grindstone I could build a competent monk-type character, but it'd be complicated and a pain in the ass. But, an unarmed swordsage does it beautifully w/ no muss -- it's simple to make and it's simple to play (I have the testimonials to prove it!). That would probably involve a radical shift in the way people think about game balance, away from banning books and crap like that, which IMO is just dumb on a number of fronts, and taking a more holistic gloss on character creation crunch. But, here's to hoping ...