Quote from: StormBringer;393755Let me see if I understand this.  When a specific flaw is pointed out (in a well regarded game), say a shitty set of skill mechanics, the hue and cry goes out that if you can fix it, it isn't broken.  But in the general sense (or in the context of a poorly regarded game), people are rushing to insist that, in fact, a rule or mechanic can be 'broken' to the point it impacts the entire scope of the game?

I think Ben is saying that rules can't be broken because no single rule will bring down the game.

Most other people are saying that sure there can be broken rules and a group will work past them if the system is worth saving.

My point was that lots of games have mathematical abnormalities some of which, like WoD dice pools meaning the better you are the more chance of getting a critical failure, are just broken pure and simple.

Quote from: jibbajibba;393771My point was that lots of games have mathematical abnormalities some of which, like WoD dice pools meaning the better you are the more chance of getting a critical failure, are just broken pure and simple.

I don't want to get into a huge discussion about a specific mechanic here, but perhaps that is exactly what it is intended to do?  The better you are at something, the greater the odds of seriously messing things up become?  As the old saying goes, "To err is human, to really fuck things up, you need a computer".

In other words, it is broken in the context of I don't think it should work like that, but it could very well be the exact outcome the designers planned.

Quote from: StormBringer;393815In other words, it is broken in the context of I don't think it should work like that, but it could very well be the exact outcome the designers planned.

No, it really wasn't their intention. They admitted as much years and years ago. This was oldschool World of Darkness stuff. Like pre-Revised even. They were still a very new company, and their games hadn't reached the peak of their mid-to-late-90's popularity yet. In later iterations of the Storyteller(ing) system, they learned their lesson and have successfully avoided this problem ever since.

I just wish they'd come out with a version of Exalted(or, better yet, Scion; I love me some modern supernatural stuff) that was as good system-wise as the nWoD. nWoD is so good(not perfect, mind you, but pretty darn good). Their other games are so . . . disappointing. It's like they're not even being made by the same company.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;393852No, it really wasn't their intention.

Again, the specific botch mechanics aren't the point.

Quote from: StormBringer;393876Again, the specific botch mechanics aren't the point.

I was just letting you know that the original WoD botch mechanics weren't intended to punish higher stats the way they did. I do, however, agree with your conclusion. If a mechanic does exactly what it was designed to do in the way it was designed to do so, then it's hardly fair to criticize it for not doing what it's supposed to do. In such a case, it becomes a matter of preference, which is something else altogether. The rule does exactly what it's supposed to do; you just don't like it.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;393880I was just letting you know that the original WoD botch mechanics weren't intended to punish higher stats the way they did. I do, however, agree with your conclusion. If a mechanic does exactly what it was designed to do in the way it was designed to do so, then it's hardly fair to criticize it for not doing what it's supposed to do. In such a case, it becomes a matter of preference, which is something else altogether. The rule does exactly what it's supposed to do; you just don't like it.

I see what you are saying, then.

Although, for a minor diversion, the botch rate appears at first glance to be something of a wash, which isn't really better, per se.  For example, we have a seven dice pool, and a botch on the task occurs when the botches outnumber the successes.  This could happen as often as 10% of the time, regardless of the size of the dice pool; zero successes and a single 1 is an overall botch.  On the other hand, an average difficulty of 6 means you will have to roll three successes and four 1's to have an overall botch.  Rolling the four 1's is .1 x .1 x .1 x .1 = .0001; or .01%.  Granted, that is successively rolling the same die, but in this case the odds keep dropping for rolling enough 1s to botch overall.  

Rolling seven discrete dice has different odds, naturally, that deal with permutations and all, but I don't see the math being all that off-kilter.  I would be more than happy to revise my views if someone less-lazy than myself can demonstrate the math.  My brain is running a bit on overload lately, so I am not recalling the formulas to calculate permutations.

(Or do I have those backwards again?)

Quote from: StormBringer;393904On the other hand, an average difficulty of 6 means you will have to roll three successes and four 1's to have an overall botch.  Rolling the four 1's is .1 x .1 x .1 x .1 = .0001; or .01%.  Granted, that is successively rolling the same die, but in this case the odds keep dropping for rolling enough 1s to botch overall.

Yeah, that would be 4 1's on 4 dice(or the same die rolled 4 times). Getting 4 1's on 7 dice is much more likely. That's not to say it's incredibly likely, but it's a significant increase from .01%. You also have to take into account that rolls of 2-5 are neither successes nor success removers(1's used to remove success, not just cause a botch in the event you got no successes in the first place). I thought back in the day you needed to roll 8 or higher for it to count as a success and the difficulty was modified by how many successes you needed. It's been forever, though, so don't quote me on that.

It's been forever since I actually went over the oldest iteration of the oWoD rules, and it's been a long time since I had a statistics class, too, so anything beyond basic probabilities . . . blah. I just know that 1's subtracting successes caused more failures and botches than it was intended to.

There are also some weird things about dice when they start adding up. If using 10-sided dice, rolling 11 dice will give a 100% guarantee that some, number will roll at least doubles. But no matter how many dice you roll you never have a 100% chance of a specific number rolling doubles. Weird but true.

Quote from: StormBringer;393755Let me see if I understand this.  When a specific flaw is pointed out (in a well regarded game), say a shitty set of skill mechanics, the hue and cry goes out that if you can fix it, it isn't broken.  But in the general sense (or in the context of a poorly regarded game), people are rushing to insist that, in fact, a rule or mechanic can be 'broken' to the point it impacts the entire scope of the game?

Yes.

I don't know if there's "Broken" or not, but there sure is "Sucks".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;394053I don't know if there's "Broken" or not, but there sure is "Sucks".

RPGPundit

That I can agree with.

Quote from: Benoist;393951Yes.

By definition, isn't something that needs to be fixed in order to work properly . . . broken? My issue with "broken" mechanics has more to do with how much of a pain they are to fix, or how pervasive the "brokenness" is within a whole system. I'm willing to fix occasional minor things, but I'm not willing to do the work to fix a lot of minor things or something more major(usually a more central rule that has far-reaching implications w/in the system as a whole). The way I see it, the cost of the book(s) covers having someone else do that kinda stuff for me to a great extent.

Quote from: RPGPundit;394053I don't know if there's "Broken" or not, but there sure is "Sucks".

RPGPundit

:rotfl: I concur

My understanding of the term broken rule is that it means a rule that does not work as intended. The rule is broken because if you use it as written you get weird results which aren't what the rule was meant to produce.

Nothing in that means the game is broken.  It may be easily houseruled, it may not come up much, it may not be that bad an outcome, it's still a broken rule.

The problem with the OP is it equates broken mechanics with broken games.  A game can have broken mechanics within it and yet still be a good game overall.  Or it may have so many that playing the game is just more trouble than it's worth.

That something's broken doesn't mean it can't be fixed.  It may though mean that it's not worth the effort of fixing.