I got to thinking about different systems and their effect on play today regarding candidates for a Warcraft-based campaign, and one of the thoughts that popped into mind was about AC systems in D&D, specifically the ascending versus descending thing.
Now, this is a well-worn argument at this point, but generally the modern wisdom has fallen in favor of ascending, as it seems to be felt to be a much more intuitive mechanic, just on the grounds of the math, no subtracting of negative numbers or the like as you'd occasionally run into in the older editions.
But then I got to thinking about how I might reduce the impact of gear greed in the game, to allow for more of a shift in focus away from power grind and just let players get on with the game, and it struck me that one of the ways gear escalation happens is when numbers aren't capped.
And then I remembered the old descending AC system, and started thinking of it in a different light. With the old editions, you never got the crazy mathematical escalation you find in D&D ACs because there just weren't that numbers to go around, and the descending scale starting at 9 meant there just was a natural cap to how ridiculous AC could ever get.
I also started wondering about that whole "18/00" percentile thing I never really understood back in the day, as a way of capping a stat while still allowing for a more powerful characters to be represented in some way.
So what are some examples you can think of of mechanics derided as "broken" that when analyzed less shallowly reveal a little more wisdom than is realized?
To throw out another example, the infamous "you can die in chargen" thing from Traveller, that so few people seem to realize is the very lynchpin of how the game balances the character system.
In Mage: The Excuse, it is really easy to kill anyone. One wizard makes a portal in a looking glass and the other gives him a heart attack. In reality, the absurdity of the power level in the game is important.
Mage was about, to me, trying to implement wisdom and subtly, despite the fact that everyone has bazookas. The game has to be run in such a way that killing someone almost never solves the problem. Player characters are able to live, once they have been discovered by their enemies, because killing them doesn't help the situation. Both sides gain more by converting each other than by killing, and everyone on every side is busy plugging holes. The technocrats know that if they kill you, any problems you were containing will explode in their face.
Crappy limited fighters, versus all-powerful mages.
Dungeons and Dragons is often criticized for the wild disparity in play value between fighters and mages, even as 4e is lauded for the balance.
But being a 'crappy' fighter meant that, hey, when it came time for combat, you didn't have to think too much about what to do, didn't ever catch crap for casting the 'wrong' spell, and if you didn't want spend money on books and time on reading them, you could quickly learn all you needed to know. It also meant that players that wanted to be a more 'realistic' hero had an option, a class that didn't necessarily do ridiculous things at some point.
So, even though the classes were 'unbalanced', players were allowed to balance themselves based on how they wanted to play.
I remember in D&D, I'd have not particularly fluent players, that nonetheless could play their fighters well, where in 4e, I've got players with a year of experience that still struggle like heck with all the complications that simply cannot be avoided....even if it's all 'balanced'.
Fighters are balanced in old D&D because they were necessary for adventuring. If the party encountered to many fights for the wizard to keep up with, only the fighter still could fight. A fighter buffed by a wizard is more powerful than a wizard and a fighter fighting on their own in a lot of cases (magiced weapons, haste). In the context of the dungeon, enemies can't get to the wizard because the fighter can block the hall.
D&D isn't suppose to be a crappy pvp game, even though people want to play it that way. It is suppose to be team vs. environment.
Item saving throws are a lot better than the alternative of DMs being sparse as hell with wealth and magic items.
There is no such thing as inherently "broken" mechanics. Just GMs and players who let them break their games.
Quote from: Benoist;393154There is no such thing as inherently "broken" mechanics. Just GMs and players who let them break their games.
Wow.
I love that thought.
So things aren't broken - there are just lazy GMs or players out there who whine too much.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Benoist;393154There is no such thing as inherently "broken" mechanics.
*cough* Exalted *cough*
Quote from: Benoist;393154There is no such thing as inherently "broken" mechanics. Just GMs and players who let them break their games.
A mechanic that does not do what it is intended to, is broken.
A mechanic that does not do what the player desires it to, is not necessarily broken, just undesirable or incompatible with the player(s).
Unfortunately, the latter usage is far more common, because gamers are by and large staggeringly ignorant of game design concepts, despite possessing an undeservedly high opinion of their own judgement.
It is these latter usages, where a player dismisses a mechanic that actually works quite well as intended, that I created my thread about.
Quote from: Koltar;393156So things aren't broken - there are just lazy GMs or players out there who whine too much.
They're lazy, or they want to use such mechanics to break the game to their advantage, or they let such mechanics break the game because they've never been taught how to handle such problems as GMs or players, or they believe the rules are the game, the game is the rules... yeah. "Brokenness" is about GMs and players, the actual game table, when said mechanic comes up in the game. Not about the mechanic itself.
Oh, for another example, stacking crits in 3.0 vs the 3.5 team's revision that took them out. Taking them out because they made crits less "special", even though they were necessary to give the lower-damage/more-accurate weapons an edge against high-damage weapons.
Quote from: J Arcane;393158A mechanic that does not do what it is intended to, is broken.
I disagree. "Broken" is an absolute statement. It means the mechanic is non-functional, reduced to pieces, shattered, irreparable, weakened to the point of uselessness. There is no such thing as a "broken" role playing game mechanic, only "broken" outlooks on said mechanic.
It's a complete misnomer from day one.
...minor apologies for a side-tangent here......however....
Benoist,
Does this idea maybe cover why everyone else thinks that GURPS combat is too slow or complex - yet I never seem to have those problems when I run the game?
To me, D&D 4/e combat is as slow as a snail in the slow lane of life's slo-mo machine.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Benoist;393161I disagree. "Broken" is an absolute statement. It means the mechanic is non-functional, reduced to pieces, shattered, irreparable, weakened to the point of uselessness. There is no such thing as a "broken" role playing game mechanic.
It's a complete misnomer from day one.
If I create a game about one thing, and my mechanics result in something completely different, I have made a broken game.
White 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.
That's what game design is about. Making sure the systems you construct, support the philosophy behind the idea and the setting.
Quote from: Koltar;393163Does this idea maybe cover why everyone else thinks that GURPS combat is too slow or complex - yet I never seem to have those problems when I run the game?
To me, D&D 4/e combat is as slow as a snail in the slow lane of life's slo-mo machine.
Let's say you're having really slow 4e combats. Some guy, named... Peter, say, tells you "I don't have any of these problems in my game". Say now that you have reasons to believe the guy isn't actually full of shit, and his games indeed go rather smoothly.
If you then state "4e combat rules are broken", then you are just full of shit. When you're saying that something is "broken", all you're really saying is "I don't know how to deal with this rule that doesn't create the outcomes I want in the game!"
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. :D
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.
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. :D
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. :D
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?
Quote from: Benoist;393290Fact 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.
So you really think there are no broken rules? You don't think the fact that in WoD increasing the number of dice you got to roll increased the chance of a critical failure or that the orignal 4e Skill challenge needed errata, or that in V&V a character who manages to stack their agility to 50 or so not only gets 4 attacks before everyone else but those attacks are at +25 to hit and damage, or that the distribution curve of 2d6 means that a -2 modifier has different % effects on your chance to hit based on you own skill....
Maths and probability really can be broken
Quote from: Jaeger;393289So 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.
Which just shows that everyone has basically missed the point of this thread to begin with.
The whole point of the thread was, in theory, to present alternate rationale behind mechanics that are often derided. If anything it is a thread all about repudiating the popular gamer idea of "broken".
I expected the general structure would be post an example of a mechanic that takes a lot of crap from a large group of people, and offer an alternate interpretation that defends it's utility against said crap.
Like I did with the example of descending AC.
If anything, I expected any derail to be the result of accidentally sparking off that hoary old flamewar, not some irrelevant bollocks about the meaning of "broken" and a lot of butthurt whinging about the very application of the term, despite the whole fucking point of the thread being to explore situations where it was misused, and maybe as well encourage people to think a little deeper about game theory.
Then I remember that it's the RPGsite, so of course instead we get a bullshit prick-waving match over a single term, and two people completely fucking unaware of the irony of derailing an entire thread with an argument about derailing threads.
Quote from: J Arcane;393299If anything, I expected any derail to be the result of accidentally sparking off that hoary old flamewar, not some irrelevant bollocks about the meaning of "broken" and a lot of butthurt whinging about the very application of the term, despite the whole fucking point of the thread being to explore situations where it was misused, and maybe as well encourage people to think a little deeper about game theory.
Then I remember that it's the RPGsite, so of course instead we get a bullshit prick-waving match over a single term, and two people completely fucking unaware of the irony of derailing an entire thread with an argument about derailing threads.
Alright. I'll just drop it then, and move on on topic this time.
Another broken thing from D&D is "save or die".
Granted, too much save or die is silly, but a light sprinkling of those 'save or die' rolls in D&D really made for some exciting times. It beats the "I rush my battlemind up and use my Iron Defense ability, knowing fundamentally nothing can hurt me" stuff that is common to 4e.
I've even taken to putting extreme damage effects (on rare occasions) in 4e, where a character might well take 100 points of damage (note--that's still unlikely to be fatal unless the character is already sorely wounded), and much like in D&D, an actual risk of loss seems to add interest to the battles.
"Save or die" sucks if you have 4 people in your party and one just croaks. That's 25% of your manpower down the drain. If you have 6 or 8 people, that's only 16.7% of 12.5% of your manpower which is a lot better.
Quote from: J Arcane;393299Which just shows that everyone has basically missed the point of this thread to begin with.
The whole point of the thread was, in theory, to present alternate rationale behind mechanics that are often derided. If anything it is a thread all about repudiating the popular gamer idea of "broken".
I've been watching this with interest - I find it hard to conceive of any mechanic that doesn't have some redeeming value somewhere. Or, at least can't be easily fixed.
But here goes:
AD&D: xp for gold (encourages stealthy looting rather than direct monster slaying), different tables for different ability scores (adds layer of complexity to char design - do I put a 13 in Dex that doesn't do anything, or a 13 in Cha for more reactions/loyalty?), Rangers having 2 HD at 1st level (cool that they're more resistant to sleep, cloudkill), different subsystem mechanics (often simpler, quicker, less problems from unexpected synergies - compare Surprise in AD&D to Labyrinth Lord where Clerics get better surprise rolls than rogues due to Wis)...also minimizes game mechanic impact of very high ability scores, which are much more essential to survival in later editions.
2nd Ed - kits (great for character background development), skills and powers (OK character point costs were bad, but good basic idea)
3.0: varying class progressions e.g. epic BAB progression for fighters (allows them to use Power Attack or Expertise at higher levels), ability damage (much more streamlined than the condition tracks of SAGA/4th Ed - but really, should always have a save), 3.0
haste (which let fighters actually move + full attack using their boots of haste), 3.0 costed
wings of flying (which let fighters fly like the wizards).
4th Ed: multiple ability dependent ("S shaped") classes - are broken but should work if characters didn't get the ability bumps each 4th level driving stat divergence between their prime and crud stats.
Exalted: I'm with most people in that I think rolling 20 d10s to do anything is a bad idea, but I've heard this defended as that you can "tactilely feel the godlike power" or something.
Quote from: Doom;393308Another broken thing from D&D is "save or die".
Granted, too much save or die is silly, but a light sprinkling of those 'save or die' rolls in D&D really made for some exciting times. It beats the "I rush my battlemind up and use my Iron Defense ability, knowing fundamentally nothing can hurt me" stuff that is common to 4e.
I've even taken to putting extreme damage effects (on rare occasions) in 4e, where a character might well take 100 points of damage (note--that's still unlikely to be fatal unless the character is already sorely wounded), and much like in D&D, an actual risk of loss seems to add interest to the battles.
"Save or dies" really could still exist since any roll might have lethal consequences - even if explicit effects that kill you (Finger of Death) are out, there's still the possibility of failing a Jump check and falling into the 500' pit. Having a mechanic where you get a reserve of rerolls or something might have been more effective than an outright ban, actually.
4th Ed. removing save or dies wasn't so much any belief on the part of the designers that these are bad (even though they claimed that), so much as that they're a mechanic that causes problems in tandem with other 4e rules - 4e literally can't do save-vs-death because of Defenses (the attacker rolls, which feels very different subjectively to the player, even with the same probability...) and "Saving Throws" being basically a coin flip.
Really great OP, J_Arcane! Made me understand AD&D in a new light. I'd never thought through the implications of there being caps in AC and stats - the idea being that a game design caps off a value progressing beyond a certain level since the game would go all wonky beyond that value.
The really interesting thing is that no post-AD&D edition addressed this problem satisfactorily. With 3E you get the impression that the designers simply removed number caps - but never worried about the ensuing progression being wonky. 3E high level play is screwed so severely that it's the best demonstration to date we have of a design addressing only half of the equation.
Which is ironically also true of 4E. 4E doesn't cap the numbers, but it has them progress steadily. Which is bullshit. If every PC and every monster progresses by simply adding +1 per level to their opposed die rolls (recall, AC means the monster takes 10 on their d20 defense roll (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm)), there's no mechanical progression going on in any meaningful sense (the +1 simplifies 4E's actual number progression, but not too much). This successfully avoids the progression from getting wonky, but it actually ceases to be a meaningful progression at all.
So there. AD&D's decision to 'cap' the progression of AC and stat numbers has never, ever, been improved on satisfactorily. In fact, so many people prefer AD&D's way of doing this that they port it over (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html) into later editions like 3E.
Quote from: noisms;393217I think there's a real "I know better than the designers" attitude amongst a lot of RPG geeks.
Perhaps because many RPG geeks also create their own rules or house rules. Moreover, in the field, what's really the difference between a "designer" and an amateur? There's not exactly a lot of rigor that goes into creating and publishing a set of rules...
Seanchai
Certainly, I've been a "professional" game designer. It sucks. I'd rather be an "amateur." You have more artistic freedom and the pay is better (because you can spend the time you'd have to spend getting nattered at by corporate in order to secure an actual paycheck from writing RPG material working at a real job).
Every professional RPG writer is just a fanboy whose materials are being purchase by some game company or another. The only advantage to that is gamer cred from the people who still have respect for names they see in the credits of books. But you can get the same creepy adulation releasing material for free on the web. Seriously.
I get more fan mail from my "free" projects than I got from my "professional" projects. Not only do many people "know better than the designers," but I would argue that pretty much anyone whose life path isn't leading them to be a "professional" designer has probably made the right choice at some point.
-Frank