Quote from: J Arcane;393165White Wolf's original Vampire, was a broken game.  It was supposed to be about storytelling and intrigue and drama, but the mechanics were largely written to encourage high-powered street thuggery.  It is a failure of the system to support it's premise, and thus, broken design.

Sure, under this definition it would work: I personally agree with everything you say here. Yet, Vampire is one of the most successful games of all time at my game tables. It is NOT a broken game. It is one of the most marvelous RPGs to ever exist actually. Its authors were just full of shit, and didn't know, or were hypocritical about, what they were coming up with.

The idea to me here is functionality.

Saying a mechanic is "broken" means to me that it is "NOT functional". At all. Kaput. That it WRECKS games.

Quote from: Benoist;393167Sure, under this definition it would work: I personally agree with everything you say here. Yet, Vampire is one of the most successful games of all time at my game tables. It is NOT a broken game. It is one of the most marvelous RPGs to ever exist actually. Its authors were just full of shit, and didn't know, or were hypocritical about, what they were coming up with.

The idea to me here is functionality.

Saying a mechanic is "broken" means to me that it is "NOT functional". At all. Kaput. That it WRECKS games.

It completely fails at the goal it was designed to achieve.  That the actual result was more desirable to players than the original goal would've been is a serendipitous accident, but does not refute the basic notion that as a game design, it is a failure.

To take a similar analogy that might not be so close to heart and thus allow a more rational analysis, take the example of a poor film that still manages to amuse unintentionally.  The Brendan Fraser Mummy vehicle utterly failed as a horror film, but so hilarious that it was well received by audiences anyway (myself included) because of this that they actually switched gears and made future films in a more comedic light because it seemed to be what audiences wanted.  

It is on these bases that I am quite comfortable describing a game design as broken or failed.  It may still be fun, but it has obviously failed to enact it's desired goals.

Benoist, there are broken mechanics. Deal with it.

Quote from: J Arcane;393168It completely fails at the goal it was designed to achieve.  That the actual result was more desirable to players than the original goal would've been is a serendipitous accident, but does not refute the basic notion that as a game design, it is a failure.

Interesting! Because to me that's pretty much the exact opposite: that the mechanic does not fulfill its original intent does not matter as far as the actual play is concerned. If it's functional at the game table, then it is, regardless of intent. A mechanic is "broken" when it actually breaks games at the game table.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;393171Benoist, there are broken mechanics. Deal with it.

DU, people might have different points of views at what "broken" is and isn't, and what constitutes a "broken mechanic" thereof.
Deal with it.

Quote from: J Arcane;393168It is on these bases that I am quite comfortable describing a game design as broken or failed.

To me, "broken" game design isn't the same thing as "failed" game design, and each of these qualifications is subject to different definitions depending on the people you talk to.

To me, a broken design is a rule that, when used at an actual game table, breaks, i.e. wrecks the game as it is played.

A "failed game design", however, might be a broken design, or a design that doesn't fulfill its original intent in the context of the game's overall aims, or something else entirely.

Most people in the RPG community like to think of themselves as being so damn smart, yet why is it so many can't grasp the simple concept of staying on topic?  C'mon guys.

  I say if some want to say 'broken' means 'totally non functional' so beit but they shouldn't sit there and pretend they don't understand the view others have that 'broken' simply means 'a rule that doesn't give the intended results it should'.

  No back on topic.....

  For 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.

  Example, you drink a vial of poison and make your save.  How?  Did you grit your teeth and fight it off like a man or did you spit it out of your mouth before swallowing it?   Maybe a fellow party member swatted the vial out of hand?  Be creative!

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393180Most people in the RPG community like to think of themselves as being so damn smart, yet why is it so many can't grasp the simple concept of staying on topic?  C'mon guys.

You know what? Fine. You think I'm just farting pedantic style. Fine by me.

Have a good discussion.

Quote from: Benoist;393172Interesting! Because to me that's pretty much the exact opposite: that the mechanic does not fulfill its original intent does not matter as far as the actual play is concerned. If it's functional at the game table, then it is, regardless of intent. A mechanic is "broken" when it actually breaks games at the game table.

I suppose I can agree with that.  So, WW's Vampire failing entirely at being a "storytelling" game is failed design, while the critical mechanic is outright broken because it creates a system where the better you are, the more you fail, because the designer was horrible at math.  

I also see where you've come from as far as not wanting to use "broken" or even "failed", because of how those terms get used in online communities.  I guess I just try to use it in a more academic sense, for lack of a less pretentious-sounding way of putting it.

Regardless, it was really more refuting examples of the popular definition that I was getting at with the thread, hence the example of descending AC.  Lots of people, myself included, have derided it as "broken" and stupid in the past, and I thought it an interesting exercise to look at it in a different light.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393180I say if some want to say 'broken' means 'totally non functional' so beit but they shouldn't sit there and pretend they don't understand the view others have that 'broken' simply means 'a rule that doesn't give the intended results it should'.

Last footnote. Nevermind that's not what the word "BROKEN" means, right?

"BROKEN" in RPG discussions does not mean "the intended result are not as they should". No. In RPG discussions, "broken" means "OH MY FUCKING GOD THE GAME IS BROKEN IT SUCKS SO BAD IT SHOULD BE FIXED WHERE IS THE ERRATAS ALREADIES?!!!ONE???"

That's what it means.

So don't give me that shit. Broken means that: broken. Kaput. Shattered. Unusable. For fuck sakes. Either way you look at it, it just doesn't compute with me: in a gaming sense, broken is meant to say "THE SKY IS FALLING!". In a semantic sense, as in, what the actual word, "BROKEN", means, it is an absolute, not a nuance. It is ... BROKEN.

Jesus Christ guys. And I'm the one who's somehow dismissive of other people's points of view? Fuck you, man!

Quote from: J Arcane;393182I suppose I can agree with that.

Sorry about that last post, J. It's just the passive aggressive bullshit of that Spinal guy that got through my nose is all.

Give me a break Benoist.  

  Facts are, 1) you can't stay on topic and 2)  You refuse to even admit you understand the concept of 'others use the term broken as meaning the rules don't give the intended results they should'.  How lame.

  Unlike you, I'm not going to derail this thread any further commenting on your silly rantings on what broken means.  You got any comments you want to direct at me personally, you can just PM me.  

  Signed, 'that Spinal guy'

  P.S.  How 'bout we start a NEW thread and come up with a new term for 'rules that don't give the intended results they should' just for you?

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393194Give me a break Benoist.  

  Facts are, 1) you can't stay on topic and 2)  You refuse to even admit you understand the concept of 'others use the term broken as meaning the rules don't give the intended results they should'.  How lame.

Well so far, the only guy I seem to be upsetting is you. For some reason, what I'm saying rubs you the wrong way. You just decided to be a dick about it passive-aggressive style. So don't blame me for trashing the thread: you started it with your nameless comment bullshit on "people who can't stay on topic" and "feel they're so smart". Again: fuck you, man.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;393194Unlike you, I'm not going to derail this thread any further commenting on your silly rantings on what broken means.  You got any comments you want to direct at me personally, you can just PM me.  

  Signed, 'that Spinal guy'

  P.S.  How 'bout we start a NEW thread and come up with a new term for 'rules that don't give the intended results they should' just for you?

AH. Now. I must thank you for this, because it must have been really hard for you after that first post on the thread to summon the courage to actually write a direct answer aimed at me.

No really. I realize it must have been an herculean task for you. So thanks for the direct shot, at least.
This ends our tangent on a positive note.

PS: As for the appropriate term we could come up with, I kind of like "rules that don't give the intended results they should", actually. This sounds a lot better than "broken rules", to me, but what the heck, why not pursue the misnomers and just discuss in terms of memes directly rather than ideas, right? Nobody will understand what we're actually talking about, but we'll have the occasion to congratulate ourselves on a job well done once we are done ejecting everyone who doesn't agree with our views from the thread.

I would agree with Benoist's point that "not doing what it intended to do" and "broken " are separate cateogies but I would have to say there are plenty of broken mechanics. Back to the orignal WoD the both dice was broken simply becuase mathematically the better you were the more chance you would botch. The system itself is not broken becuase it works as a game even if its not the game the authors seemed to intend.

There are plenty of shitty crap arse games that have broken mechanics just because they weren't play-tested correctly or the designer didn't understand the maths. It seems to be that the first interation of the 4E Skills challenges falls into this category which is why it was errata'ed.

It's not just Role-playing games look at MtG the ten killer cards from the first edition were deemed to be broken so they were removed. You could argue that the strength of a game and its designers is to spot these faults and be prepared to adjust them. It's when everyone gets precious about a game and claims it's perfect that we need to avoid.

Quote from: Benoist;393197Well so far, the only guy I seem to be upsetting is you.

 I'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?

QuoteFor some reason, what I'm saying rubs you the wrong way. You just decided to be a dick about it passive-aggressive style.

 Not 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?

  And no I wasn't being a dick, but someone is.

QuoteSo don't blame me for trashing the thread: you started it with your nameless comment bullshit on "people who can't stay on topic" and "feel they're so smart".

  But 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.

  You know it's true too.  Most 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?

QuoteAgain: fuck you, man.

  Ahh, the classic internet name calling that one wouldn't have the balls to say to someones face.  FU too.

QuoteAH. Now. I must thank you for this, because it must have been really hard for you after that first post on the thread to summon the courage to actually write a direct answer aimed at me.

  Yeah, 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 )?  

QuoteThis ends our tangent on a positive note.

Nothing will end this tangent because you won't let it end.  Prove me wrong.

QuotePS: As for the appropriate term we could come up with, I kind of like "rules that don't give the intended results they should", actually. This sounds a lot better than "broken rules", to me,

  That'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...

Of 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.  

  So 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.