Back on topic: Fuck yes.

I think there's a real "I know better than the designers" attitude amongst a lot of RPG geeks. It's an arrogance that probably stems from the fact that geeks train themselves to salve their jealousy of the cool kids in school by muttering "Well, at least I'm cleverer than they are." This bleeds through to adult life, so geeks still feel themselves intellectually superior to everybody they come across. Including game designers. It never occurs to them that the designers really thought long and hard about their rules (in most cases) and playtested them to death.

I don't think I've ever played a game of AD&D as per the rules-as-written, because certain distasteful aspects (level limits, weapon speeds, spell components, etc.) always seem to get mandated out without a second thought with the phrase "Level limits? That's just stupid!" or words to that effect. Nobody ever has the humility to say to themselves, hang on, this looks stupid to me at first glance, but let's sit down and think about why the game is set up this way and how these rules might benefit it.

Quote from: noisms;393217Back on topic: Fuck yes.

I think there's a real "I know better than the designers" attitude amongst a lot of RPG geeks. It's an arrogance that probably stems from the fact that geeks train themselves to salve their jealousy of the cool kids in school by muttering "Well, at least I'm cleverer than they are." This bleeds through to adult life, so geeks still feel themselves intellectually superior to everybody they come across. Including game designers. It never occurs to them that the designers really thought long and hard about their rules (in most cases) and playtested them to death.

I don't think I've ever played a game of AD&D as per the rules-as-written, because certain distasteful aspects (level limits, weapon speeds, spell components, etc.) always seem to get mandated out without a second thought with the phrase "Level limits? That's just stupid!" or words to that effect. Nobody ever has the humility to say to themselves, hang on, this looks stupid to me at first glance, but let's sit down and think about why the game is set up this way and how these rules might benefit it.

OR some mechanics really are just stupid.

Because RPGs are big, complicated things made by small groups of people, prone to overlooking small details that could potentially come up a lot in play. Not because I'm smarter than the authors. Or the fans who actually play the game for decades after the year-long five-party playtest finished.

That said: As a new school player I like multiple valid options at chargen, but random abilities plus prereqs enforces about as much variety in player choice as balanced options do. And it prolly gets just as close to balanced (not very). Plus semi-random starting characters (now I'm thinking more of other games) has its own particular kind of cool, in making mixed power parties happen.

Quote from: beejazz;393225OR some mechanics really are just stupid.

Because RPGs are big, complicated things made by small groups of people, prone to overlooking small details that could potentially come up a lot in play. Not because I'm smarter than the authors. Or the fans who actually play the game for decades after the year-long five-party playtest finished.

Sure, but how many people actually use the rules as written for decades before making a decision about whether to change them or not?

Admittedly there are some howlers in RPGs (the Cyberpunk 2020 rules, which basically causes fumbles 1 every 10 actions, are a case in point) but I think you can draw a distinction between this sort of mathematical silliness and actual decisions of policy (e.g. spell components, racial level limits, etc.).

Quote from: noisms;393217I think there's a real "I know better than the designers" attitude amongst a lot of RPG geeks. It's an arrogance that probably stems from the fact that geeks train themselves to salve their jealousy of the cool kids in school by muttering "Well, at least I'm cleverer than they are." This bleeds through to adult life, so geeks still feel themselves intellectually superior to everybody they come across. Including game designers. It never occurs to them that the designers really thought long and hard about their rules (in most cases) and playtested them to death.

This is true in general for many people, even outside of rpg games.

For example, many people think they know what is good for everybody when it comes to economics and politics.

While I think there are broken mechanics, I think there is a big difference between mechanics that are truly broken, mechanics that players do not like, and mechanics that work well but break a particular campaign or play style.

Truly broken mechanics are those that prevent play from working as expected/intended even when used correctly by players playing as the designer intends. An example would probably be skill challenges in D&D 4e -- at least in their original published form. Rules that do not match up with "real world" expectations are also broken if players are likely to expect that game should mirror reality in that area. An example of the latter would be characters who can regularly take hits from 5-10 bullets and not die in a game that is supposed to reflect modern world reality.

Game mechanics that some players do not like really aren't broken if they do not prevent play from working as expected even when used correctly. An example would be descending AC. It works fine and as expected in play. Many players think it is counter-intuitive or harder than adding, but it still works fine so it isn't really broken.

Game mechanics may work fine in some campaigns or play styles but not others. For example, some groups where players don't optimize or otherwise powergame have no problems with D&D 3.x while other groups where players do a lot of character optimization find the power differences between characters made the game unplayable. The rules aren't really broken in general, but they work much better for some styles of play than others. Most games with any depth (i.e. more than Bridge or Chess) have this "problem".

Finally there is the case where a popular game has changed so much between editions that it no longer matches the expectations of those who have played and enjoyed the previous edition(s) which "breaks" things for those players. This really should never happen. If the designer is going to intentionally change the game that much then the game should have a different name. (Marketing people may not like this, but not changing the name in such a game is really a form of false advertising.)

Quote from: Benoist;393154There is no such thing as inherently "broken" mechanics. Just GMs and players who let them break their games.

Eh. I don't know if you wan't to call it broken, but any mechanic that costs more fun than it creates doesn't deserve play time at my table.

Quote from: RandallS;393230While I think there are broken mechanics, I think there is a big difference between mechanics that are truly broken, mechanics that players do not like, and mechanics that work well but break a particular campaign or play style.

Truly broken mechanics are those that prevent play from working as expected/intended even when used correctly by players playing as the designer intends. An example would probably be skill challenges in D&D 4e -- at least in their original published form. Rules that do not match up with "real world" expectations are also broken if players are likely to expect that game should mirror reality in that area. An example of the latter would be characters who can regularly take hits from 5-10 bullets and not die in a game that is supposed to reflect modern world reality.

Game mechanics that some players do not like really aren't broken if they do not prevent play from working as expected even when used correctly. An example would be descending AC. It works fine and as expected in play. Many players think it is counter-intuitive or harder than adding, but it still works fine so it isn't really broken.

Game mechanics may work fine in some campaigns or play styles but not others. For example, some groups where players don't optimize or otherwise powergame have no problems with D&D 3.x while other groups where players do a lot of character optimization find the power differences between characters made the game unplayable. The rules aren't really broken in general, but they work much better for some styles of play than others. Most games with any depth (i.e. more than Bridge or Chess) have this "problem".

Finally there is the case where a popular game has changed so much between editions that it no longer matches the expectations of those who have played and enjoyed the previous edition(s) which "breaks" things for those players. This really should never happen. If the designer is going to intentionally change the game that much then the game should have a different name. (Marketing people may not like this, but not changing the name in such a game is really a form of false advertising.)

Nice Post, RandallS

Vreeg's first rule of setting design, "Make sure the ruleset or system you choose matches the setting and game you want to play, because eventually, the game and setting  WILL match the ruleset."
I make this point because I believe too many GMs try to plug a square game into a round setting, for a variety of reasons.

The comments about AD&D RAW is right on for me, as well.  Many rules I did not use for years suddenly started making some sense.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393180For me it was OD&D/AD&D's saving throws.  A seemingly random collection of categories with numbers that didn't seem to make much sense and didn't take a characters ability scores into considerstion.  I'm still not a huge fan of not having ability scores effect ( most ) saves, but I have come to at least appriciate the concept more due to the fact the saving throw numbers don't tell you HOW or WHY you made your save...just if you DID.  It lets you then ROLEPLAY out  how/why you made em.  

  If ability scores modified your saves, then it would imply certain save categories assumed you were resisting those effects a certain way.

In AD&D, ability scores DID modify saving throws. Of course, EGG screwed the players anyway...thieves had horrible saves versus Dragon Breath, and needed to have a high dex mod to keep up with other classes there.

Unless we're talking about utterly shit games (FATAL), rarely are the rules bad, they're just disagreed with so vehemently by a vocal subset that it becomes parroted, incorrect "common knowledge" that the rules are "bad".

Weapon v. armor type in AD&D springs to mind.  Folks say they're unwieldy - but all RPG rules are unwieldy - at first.  Learn, incorporate, and presto, they're not unwieldy.  The bandits in leather armor aren't switching armor every round.  That modifier your longsword gets will apply for pretty much the whole combat.  And the next time you confront someone in leather armor.  And after that.  And so on down the line.

Once I introduced them, my group found the weapon-versus-armor table to be a great boon.  It introduced variety, allowed differentiation and caused them to care what weapons they had at a given time - they're great.

(I understand, however, that they're onerous and don't really work for some people.)

Conversely, in my group we had four people in the SCA - when I was outlining the by-the-book progression of the rules, I mentioned that in the combat system as written, when facing multiple foes in a melee, a character doesn't choose whom they hit; it's determined randomly.  So a fighter if a fighter faced three foe-men, I'd maybe throw a d6 and go 1-2, guy on the left, 3-4, guy in front, 5-6, guy on the right.  But, again, there were four people who once or twice a month went out and beat on people with rattan swords and got honest to goodness bruises, sprains, fractures and whatnot and they told me straight up: no, in a swirling melee yes you absolutely can pick your foe, regardless of who is in front of you, etc.  So we dispensed with that rule.

Stickier ones, like, say, demi-human level limits?  I DM very humanocentric worlds.  That's the way it is, that's the nature of the universe itself.  My players accepted that, and we moved on.

Quote from: noisms;393227Sure, but how many people actually use the rules as written for decades before making a decision about whether to change them or not?

Admittedly there are some howlers in RPGs (the Cyberpunk 2020 rules, which basically causes fumbles 1 every 10 actions, are a case in point) but I think you can draw a distinction between this sort of mathematical silliness and actual decisions of policy (e.g. spell components, racial level limits, etc.).

Does a person need to use the RAW for decades before they can cause a problem?

Especially with newbs (and let's face it: most playtesters have probably played RPGs before), the RAW can become a problem much, much sooner.

Not everyone is an experienced gamer who knows the consequence of mechanics at the table just by looking at them. So rules can present unexpected pitfalls. And for those of us that either played for a little, found something wrong and changed it early... or for those of us that have played for a long time and can tell just by looking what will and won't work for us... what, that's wrong now?

If a person's planning on playing a game past level whatever, level limits can suck pretty bad. Sure, part of this depends on the math of how different characters of different level actually are, but beyond that it's pretty intuitive. Just to give an example. As Pundit pointed out about his BECMI game (I think) there were level-limited demihumans who worked fine for way longer than you'd expect, so maybe it's not the *best* example. But distaste for a hard cap on power acquisition in a game that for many is about power acquisition is hardly difficult to understand.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;393275Unless we're talking about utterly shit games (FATAL), rarely are the rules bad, they're just disagreed with so vehemently by a vocal subset that it becomes parroted, incorrect "common knowledge" that the rules are "bad".

Weapon v. armor type in AD&D springs to mind.  Folks say they're unwieldy - but all RPG rules are unwieldy - at first.  Learn, incorporate, and presto, they're not unwieldy.  The bandits in leather armor aren't switching armor every round.  That modifier your longsword gets will apply for pretty much the whole combat.  And the next time you confront someone in leather armor.  And after that.  And so on down the line.

Once I introduced them, my group found the weapon-versus-armor table to be a great boon.  It introduced variety, allowed differentiation and caused them to care what weapons they had at a given time - they're great.

(I understand, however, that they're onerous and don't really work for some people.)

<.....snip....>

Stickier ones, like, say, demi-human level limits? I DM very humanocentric worlds. That's the way it is, that's the nature of the universe itself. My players accepted that, and we moved on.

The weapon vs AC modifiers are a poor example because the table refers to them as AC not armour type. That is a rule that could easily been fixed if AC7 had been replaced with Studded leather and AC 5 had been replaced with Chainmail etc. The rule as written is just lazy (not broken per se) and creates a load of debate and interpretation.

I don't think level limits are broken but I do think they fail to achieve the desired aim, to create largely human parties. Because D&D was lethal PCs die, a lot especially at lower levels. Therefore most games are lower level therefore level limits that kick it at 7th or 8th are a poor patch to the massive advantages of a multiclassed demi-human in general play. An XP penalty to Demi-Humans and some specialist classes (like the OD&D Elf) to allow fighter magic-users or figther thieves would have been a cleaner solution.

But neither of these is a broken mechanic a broken mechanic really should be used just to describe situations where the RAW don't work mathematically or where a min-maxed PC can defeat the aim of the rule by passing some mathematical limit. The latter is really what happened in say MtG when they realised that making a card rare was insufficient to ensure that some spod didn't buy 40 of them somehow (so 4 of any card limits) the same is true of a number of point buy games where abilities stack up in unpredicted ways.

Quote from: jibbajibba;393280The weapon vs AC modifiers are a poor example because the table refers to them as AC not armour type. That is a rule that could easily been fixed if AC7 had been replaced with Studded leather and AC 5 had been replaced with Chainmail etc. The rule as written is just lazy (not broken per se) and creates a load of debate and interpretation.

I don't think level limits are broken but I do think they fail to achieve the desired aim, to create largely human parties. Because D&D was lethal PCs die, a lot especially at lower levels. Therefore most games are lower level therefore level limits that kick it at 7th or 8th are a poor patch to the massive advantages of a multiclassed demi-human in general play. An XP penalty to Demi-Humans and some specialist classes (like the OD&D Elf) to allow fighter magic-users or figther thieves would have been a cleaner solution.

But neither of these is a broken mechanic a broken mechanic really should be used just to describe situations where the RAW don't work mathematically or where a min-maxed PC can defeat the aim of the rule by passing some mathematical limit. The latter is really what happened in say MtG when they realised that making a card rare was insufficient to ensure that some spod didn't buy 40 of them somehow (so 4 of any card limits) the same is true of a number of point buy games where abilities stack up in unpredicted ways.

you know I knew I just should've kept my yap shut

The point wasn't whether or not you or anyone else thinks weapon versus armor type or DHLLs are "not 'broken'", the point was largely that "broken" in addition to being a stupid word* to use in this context is almost entirely subjective and wholly meaningless.  


*-when I become world dictator this word in addition to "old school" will be outlawed from use in RPG contexts.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;393281you know I knew I just should've kept my yap shut

The point wasn't whether or not you or anyone else thinks weapon versus armor type or DHLLs are "not 'broken'", the point was largely that "broken" in addition to being a stupid word* to use in this context is almost entirely subjective and wholly meaningless.  


*-when I become world dictator this word in addition to "old school" will be outlawed from use in RPG contexts.

Hey I am agreeing with you

They aren't broken*, they just aren't very good rules as written.

So to sum up this thread...


 The word "Broken" is entirely subjective and does not mean what anyone thinks it means. Even if the majority of gamers use "broken" in a way that they all seem to understand.

  Of course this begs the digression of who "all" of these "majority" of gamers really are, and how you group/the people you know are not part of it. Or how they are part of it. Or how you know better/are smarter than anyone else on this site, about whatever you feel like being argumentative about today.

 And I believe that The Mummy was made to be a tounge in cheek film from the get go.

So there.


.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393215I'm sure there are plenty others here who don't like comming on these ( or other ) forums and listen to people constanly bitch for no reason  ( that has nothing to do with the topic of course ), seemingly just for the sake of bitching.  To me, that's what you're doing since there was no reason to go off on a 'broken' tangent.

  Yes, sometimes a thread can gradually lose sight of the original topic, but it just seems like so many just go out of their way to derail the thread which I find childish.

  This isn't directed at you personally, it's others too who make it very difficult to find info, discuss topics of interest etc.  What made me post what I did was I was just fed up with it already and that was my way of saying 'hey smarty pants, stay on topic!'.  Notice how I still managed to post on the actual topic too?

That's nice. You get points with the school teacher for that.

 

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393215Not quite. It's just I'm getting tired of sorting through everybody's bitching when I want to read and post about the original topic.  You know DAMN well the term 'broken' ( as it pertains to game mechanics ) is generally refered to mean 'not producing the intended results', but you CHOSE to derail the thread and rant about YOUR defininition of 'broken'.  Why?  Why not start your own thread on this?

Dude. You're not the thread police. You don't get to tell other people where they post, how they post, whether they're on topic or not. I appreciate that you're tired about these sorts of things and decided for some reason to go after me passive-aggressive style for it, but you don't get to tell me how to post. If you're not happy, you know how to log off from the board.

Or... you could create a thread on the Help Desk forum too, if you're so upset about it.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393215But in this thread, you're to blame.  In other threads, there are many others who bitch and cry and get completely off topic, not post anything even remotely pertaining to the topic....for pages and pages, and pages...You got mad when I told it how it was.

Not so, mister I-so-know-better-than-anyone-else. We had a discussion with J and others about this. J, the actual OP -not you-, was perfectly fine with it. And then, somehow, you took objection to the whole thing and started throwing indirect insults at me.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393215You know it's true too.

Actually, no. I don't consider it "true". But please go on.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393215Most people in the RPG community think of themselves as being intellecually superior to others but read their posts ( not 'yours', just people's in general ) and they whine, bitch , rant, and purposely miss others points just to be difficult and to show everybody else how much smarter they are by pointing out others perceived flaws.  Very childess attitude for such 'smart' people don't you think?

Such is the attitude to just pop up into a thread to start acting like you're the adult in the room, telling people what is correct posting, or behavior, how people should post and not post, because, you know, you're just so much more mature than anyone else, and you took a step back see? And you see things so much more clearly than we do. Right. Right? Right.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393215Ahh, the classic internet name calling that one wouldn't have the balls to say to someones face.  FU too.

You're not in Kansas anymore. You want to tell me something on the board? I would appreciate if you would refer to me directly, instead of taking indirect shots at me RPGnet-style. You don't get to tell people how they ought to post on the forums, unless you're a mod, and someone broke an actual rule of the RPGSite. Neither of these incidences happened.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393215Yeah, I guess because I was so intimidated by your 5500+ posts.  Or perhaps maybe I was trying to be nice and not call you out personally ( since it applies to many others )?  

No, you were trying to bitch about it your own way, passive-aggressive, indirect, RPGnet style, and you got called out on it. You got something to say to me, tell it to me directly. I'm a big boy and can take it. That's the obfuscation that offends me.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393215Nothing will end this tangent because you won't let it end.  Prove me wrong.

I'll drop it when I want to. Not because you try to rhetorically get me there.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393215That's a great idea!  It just rolls off the tongue so much better than 'broken'.  Pure genius!  How about 'broken' means the way most everybody else uses it ( not your way ) and 'completely broken' means just that?  But then didn't you say a rule can't really be 'completely broken'?  Hmmm...

So that's all it is about, hey? If it's easier to pronounce, then it's a better expression. All considerations of meaning are secondary. I mean. You realize what you're saying?

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393215Of course here's something to think about; People in everyday life use terms that may not be technically correct to mean other things.  Everyone's smart enough to know what others really mean.  For example, if someone said 'I'm going to kick your ass' it doesn't mean that some guy is going to REALLY hit the other guy in the rear with his foot...it means he's going to just 'beat him up' in general.

If you can show me there is a consensus at all that the word "broken" is meant to say "a mechanic that does not operate how it was intended to" in the context of gaming, I'll concede the point. But then, I'll claim ignorance about that fact prior to your demonstration.

Fact is? There's no such consensus as you're describing. What you got is way too many people posting about games on WotC boards, RPGnet and others who bitch about mechanics being "broken" when in fact they aren't at all, and what's at fault is their own way to look at game mechanics, rather that the game mechanics themselves. But that would break the spell. Cut through the smoke and shoot right through the mirror. See, it's all convenient, because if, as a game company, you manage to convince your audience that yes, game mechanics really can be broken, then you can profit from it through erratas, further developments of the game, up to "revised editions" and of course "new editions" of the games that just "fix" all these "awfully broken mechanics".

It's all bullshit. GMs and Players are in control. If a rule breaks your game, then someone at the game table fundamentally needs to reexamine what he or she is doing. Probably more than one. If a rule breaks your game, that means you let it become such a bad rule it ends up breaking the game.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393215So if this true ( I can think of plenty of other examples btw), why would a person as smart as you Benoist, rant about this whole 'broken' thing?  Just to argue?  Just to point out to all the 'inferiors' that they're all wrong about everything and you're right?  Only you know the answer to that.

I just happen to disagree.

Apparently, you have a problem with people who don't share your views on how to define words, how to post on forums, when to create threads, how to confront disagreements or call out people. If somehow one doesn't see things your way, then one just isn't smart at all. There must be a problem with his brains, or he's outright lying, obfuscating some further agenda because really "no person with an once of intelligence would argue things this way". Who's trying to teach who how to post, exactly?