| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i have always enjoyed playing DnD and i love pathfinder but i have to admit one thing i cant stand is when anyone refers to something in the game as "broken". Sure many DM's chose to remove something from their game if they feel it doesn't work right but in my honest opinion how can you truly enjoy a game if you don't trust the game to work?
My group follows one major rule, If it is in one of the core books (meaning any book released by Paizo) then it is always allowed without question.
How can you comfortably play in a group if you cant assume what you look at in the books is an option for you to use?
How can you truly enjoy a character if it wasn't your first choice but that option isn't allowed in some ones games?
i just feel that the term "Broken" just ruins any real fun i might have in a group, something might seem powerful or wonky to you but others might feel it works just fine.
|
i have always enjoyed playing DnD and i love pathfinder but i have to admit one thing i cant stand is when anyone refers to something in the game as "broken". Sure many DM's chose to remove something from their game if they feel it doesn't work right but in my honest opinion how can you truly enjoy a game if you don't trust the game to work?
My group follows one major rule, If it is in one of the core books (meaning any book released by Paizo) then it is always allowed without question.
How can you comfortably play in a group if you cant assume what you look at in the books is an option for you to use?
How can you truly enjoy a character if it wasn't your first choice but that option isn't allowed in some ones games?
i just feel that the term "Broken" just ruins any real fun i might have in a group, something might seem powerful or wonky to you but others might feel it works just fine.
+1.
|
You have to look at the context of the comment as well, though.
Internet communication is fraught with hyperbole - and people who are interested in systems and numbers seem to abuse it more than others - or are at least worse at communicating clearly what their problem is and why they have it.
I am one of these systems analysis / numbers geeks, I admit. And I would say that while Paizo's storytelling and adventure crafting ability is second to none, I am often concerned about system design issues I see pop up. Now, some may express their concerns about these issues in confrontational ways - I have seen many on these boards whose analysis is in depth and spot on - but they express themselves so poorly I am left with little to say except an exasperated "Don't help. Please."
That said, a poorly crafted message is not invalid. It would be better if it weren't poorly presented...but it might still be worth at least a cursory examination. Of course, if systems analysis isn't an interest, it may not be very interesting to participate in the conversation. That is an entirely valid approach.
i fully respect that a DM should enjoy a game just as much as any player but i find any time a DM "Outlaw" material from a game because he see's it as "Broken" i fell like he is imposing his enjoyment over mine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is impossible for a game system to be broken. It simply "is"; it exists, and that is all there is to it. Now, it may be that no one enjoys playing the game as it exists, but that is not cause to call it broken. Undesirable isn't broken; broken implies "doesn't work for its intended purpose" and this does not include "doesn't work the way I want it to."
If D&D were designed as a flip of a quarter--tails you lose, heads you destroy all your enemies immediately, it still wouldn't be broken. It would still work as intended...only, no one would like it.
The term is indeed tossed about way too casually, often to describe a situation that the user either doesn't like or (more often) doesn't understand.
And that's the beauty of Rule Zero. The DM can adjust anything he doesn't like/understand, and so long as his players are fine with the adjustment, then they have collectively adapted the game for their use, which is not the same thing as "fixing" it.
Peace out.
If I've told you once, I've told you a billion times, people exaggerate on the internet...
Me, when someone says something is "broken", I simply ignore the exaggeration and read it as if they had said "more (or less) powerful than other similar rules" - 99 times out of 100 it's what they really mean anyway (see what I did there?)
i totally agree with you, the important thing that you said was the DM and players adapt it to work the way they want, my problem is when i have no control over my options because some one else doesn't like it.
If D&D were designed as a flip of a quarter--tails you lose, heads you destroy all your enemies immediately, it still wouldn't be broken. It would still work as intended...only, no one would like it.
I'd like if I could have a feat where I get a re-flip... ;)
But yes, I agree with what is being said here, I've never liked the B-word, and I never will.
i have always enjoyed playing DnD and i love pathfinder but i have to admit one thing i cant stand is when anyone refers to something in the game as "broken". Sure many DM's chose to remove something from their game if they feel it doesn't work right but in my honest opinion how can you truly enjoy a game if you don't trust the game to work?
My group follows one major rule, If it is in one of the core books (meaning any book released by Paizo) then it is always allowed without question.
How can you comfortably play in a group if you cant assume what you look at in the books is an option for you to use?
How can you truly enjoy a character if it wasn't your first choice but that option isn't allowed in some ones games?
i just feel that the term "Broken" just ruins any real fun i might have in a group, something might seem powerful or wonky to you but others might feel it works just fine.
Agreed. I also think that "broken" is sometimes used in place of "I don't like". As if "broken" is the unbeatable argument winning trump card.
No no, you don't understand...it's broken.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I first I thought the OP meant there was a problem with the broken condition in the game. I was curious what it was. It would be amusing if the broken condition were broken.
Overall I agree that excluding anything core because it's broken isn't a good way to go. Excluding things for flavor reason though can be fine - i.e. elves don't exist in a game world, or celetials were wiped out eons ago, so no celestial bloodline sorcerers, etc.
You have to look at the context of the comment as well, though.
Internet communication is fraught with hyperbole - and people who are interested in systems and numbers seem to abuse it more than others - or are at least worse at communicating clearly what their problem is and why they have it.
I am one of these systems analysis / numbers geeks, I admit. And I would say that while Paizo's storytelling and adventure crafting ability is second to none, I am often concerned about system design issues I see pop up. Now, some may express their concerns about these issues in confrontational ways - I have seen many on these boards whose analysis is in depth and spot on - but they express themselves so poorly I am left with little to say except an exasperated "Don't help. Please."
That said, a poorly crafted message is not invalid. It would be better if it weren't poorly presented...but it might still be worth at least a cursory examination. Of course, if systems analysis isn't an interest, it may not be very interesting to participate in the conversation. That is an entirely valid approach.
I wrote a small essay on the topic, but the forum ate my post so I will just sum it up and say that I agree with what Jess Door wrote above.
|
My opinion is that anything the players can do the DM's NPCs and opponents should also be able to do. So if something seems too good to be true to you, think about how you would feel if it were done to your character. If that doesn't seem "fair" to you, then the spell, feat, class ability, whatever, may be overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try to allow every thing my players come up with. That being said i only didn't allow one race because it had the ability to take twice the spells per day if you gave up the first level feat, cant run with out the feat, 120 dark vision, and 100 ft good fly.
|
broken implies "doesn't work for its intended purpose"
The thing is that a complex system like D&D (or Pathfinder for that matter) is quite imppossible to balance flawlessly. Even the best designers can err and even an open playtest doesn't prevent mistakes to happen.
So it is absolutely possible that there are rules who don't work for their intended purposes. That's why there are errata, that's why there are clarifications.
The second problem (which WotC tried to solve with 4E) is that new books are normally tested together with the Core Rules but not necessarily with all other books because the designers cannot assume that a customer has other books besides the Core Rules. In 3.5, this led to quite some examples for combinations of rules material from different books which created unthought of side effects. A.k.a. broken in the meaning most people I know use this term with.
Broken when used like that is on my short list of "Annoying Terms People Use On Message Boards" list. It's right next to Gish in fact ;)
and Fighter vs. Wizard
Broken when used like that is on my short list of "Annoying Terms People Use On Message Boards" list. It's right next to Gish in fact ;)
And being someone who is always a little behind the times, what does "crunch" mean? Is it the same as "fluff" (Which means background story information that has little bearing on the actual rules).
Forgive my ignorance, I am so ignorant I don't even know where the terminology list is! lol
Yeah, using the whole "broken" word all the time, especially when it really just means "I don't like it or I think it might not be balanced" drives me nuts too.
Broken when used like that is on my short list of "Annoying Terms People Use On Message Boards" list. It's right next to Gish in fact ;)
My optimal gish build is broken for maximised DPR!
|
|
Broken when used like that is on my short list of "Annoying Terms People Use On Message Boards" list. It's right next to Gish in fact ;)And being someone who is always a little behind the times, what does "crunch" mean? Is it the same as "fluff" (Which means background story information that has little bearing on the actual rules).
Forgive my ignorance, I am so ignorant I don't even know where the terminology list is! lol
Crunch is, in fact, the opposite of Fluff. Think of it like a candy bar. On the inside you've got the crunchy, pretzely, peanutty part, which is all of the rules and mechanics for the game. Now, I for one LOVE peanuts and pretzels, but that isn't enough to satisfy ANY man. That's where the fluffy, nougaty, chocolately coating comes in, which is all the non-mechanics parts of your character; name, age, gender, backstory, etc.
Dong ma?
Time for me to show my ignorance - I understand fluff, crunch, and DPR - what's "Gish"?
Oooh, it's rare to see someone who doesn't know nowadays...
Anyway, A "gish" was originally what you called a githyanki with fighter and wizard levels.
It has now come to mean any charater that has full-ish casting and enough BAB for 3-4 attacks. They can usually cast in some sort of armor too. Various classes, feats, and prestige classes are used to achieve this.
Others may explain it differently/better.
EDIT: Also, there are a few people wh do not like it when Gish is used to refer to non-githyanki.
I think it was githyanki anyway...
Crunch is, in fact, the opposite of Fluff. Think of it like a candy bar. On the inside you've got the crunchy, pretzely, peanutty part, which is all of the rules and mechanics for the game. Now, I for one LOVE peanuts and pretzels, but that isn't enough to satisfy ANY man. That's where the fluffy, nougaty, chocolately coating comes in, which is all the non-mechanics parts of your character; name, age, gender, backstory, etc.
Dong ma?
Yes... and for some reason I want a candy bar now... lol
Undesirable isn't broken; broken implies "doesn't work for its intended purpose" and this does not include "doesn't work the way I want it to."
If it's intended purpose is to work the way I want it to, and it doesn't, then it is broken.
And that's the beauty of Rule Zero....
True enough, but something that requires modification to be used is indeed broken.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
i fully respect that a DM should enjoy a game just as much as any player but i find any time a DM "Outlaw" material from a game because he see's it as "Broken" i fell like he is imposing his enjoyment over mine.
Actually when I have outlawed stuff in my games it was to outlaw stuff the power gamer in the group used to exploit loopholes with his min/maxed character. Now it wasn't for MY enjoyment I outlawed it, it was for the rest of my players who had balanced characters and they didn't like the frenzied barbarian dominating every fight before they had the chance to do anything. Now this was in 3.5 using those mechanics. Pathfinder has fixed a lot of those loopholes with the new rules and balancing. The APG fixes the class I felt was still underpowered (the Monk). So even better.
one of the best thing about RPGs in general is the huge verity the "Game" has to offer. Every bodies game is going to be different and rules will have to be adjusted to fit the group, this dose not make them broken.
I guess what I am saying is that all games are different, no system is going to have all the angles covered, that is way all GM advise is all games says the same thing, change what you need too. RAW is all well and good for official games , but I don't see why it is argued so much. Broken is really just a way of saying "I don't like this rule"
My group is different I guess. "Fluff" (I hate that term) should be the primary reason you play a race or class. "Crunch" is a cereal that cuts the roof of your mouth and has nothing to do with gaming.
I usually DM, and if I don't allow something, it's because it doesn't fit. There is no such thing as "too powerful" because I am the DM and if you try to exploit something I either stop it or I return the favor. I hate lawyer players. This usually doesn't happen as our group has been friends for awhile and we enjoy the time away from life just as much as we enjoy the game (the Sam Adams isn't bad either).
I can think of only one guy who ever "walked away" because of a DM ruling in my 17 years of gaming, and, truth be told, he was a douche nozzle and we just played without him.
We had three DMs and three styles of DMing. I would allow multi-class fighters to specialize. My buddy would allow Rangers to specialize once. To each their own and try to remember, it's just a game, enjoy.
I dunno, a lot of what your saying doesn't really make sense to me.
in my honest opinion how can you truly enjoy a game if you don't trust the game to work?
I think games are complicated, messy things, and no designer has ever created one that is entirely perfect. There's always going to be some mistake or some aspect of rules interaction that they didn't think of. Even the biggest budget movies and videogames have script errors or glitches. It doesn't mean I can't enjoy them.
Every single game I have ever played in has houseruled some aspect of the game, whether it's to rule in botches on nat 1s or to rule that no one's playing a full caster that game. What's great about RPGs is that you can easily change them to fit your needs. It's not that I don't' trust it to work, it's that I want it to work better for my current needs.
My group follows one major rule, If it is in one of the core books (meaning any book released by Paizo) then it is always allowed without question.
I don't mean any disrespect at all, but is Pathfinder your first tabletop? And, if not, did you follow that rule in 3.5? I mean, as of now, it's easy to follow that rule since there are only 4 hardbound Pathfinder books. System bloat does happen (though it's happening so very slowly with paizo I could argue it isn't happening), and, at some point, some player will be able to find a rules interaction that completely ruins the game. Do I trust the paizo developers to completely prevent that from happening? No, because every other game I've played has had combinations of potentially overpowering stuff, and I'd much rather the designers erred on the side of 'cool new idea' than spend their days balancing my game for me.
How can you comfortably play in a group if you cant assume what you look at in the books is an option for you to use?How can you truly enjoy a character if it wasn't your first choice but that option isn't allowed in some ones games?
Well, honestly, it's not a matter of either/or. Generally, most people don't have concepts that rely entirely on one choice to be playable. If I wanted to play a fire wizard, but my DM wasn't allowing the fire wizard subschool, I could still take mostly fire spells and call myself a fire wizard. The same could be said of kukris and shortswords or Wilderness rogues and rangers. Very few players absolutely NEED one option to play their concept. If I had a player telling me I'd ruined him because I didn't allow one feat, I'd tell him to quit whining.
i just feel that the term "Broken" just ruins any real fun i might have in a group, something might seem powerful or wonky to you but others might feel it works just fine.
Honestly, it sounds like you've never played with a gloryhog powergamer. It's one thing to make your character well, it's another thing to find mechanical loopholes and feat interactions to turn your character into a god. Nobody wants to be made useless by another player, and believe me, it happens. Luckily, this is where the DM comes in to decide what's 'wonky' or 'just fine' for the game.
The thing is, I agree with you 90% of the time. People need to learn the difference between broken and breakable. Breakable implies something that COULD be used with other rules in such a way that it could become overpowering, while broken implies something so poorly designed that it is inherently overpowered and problematic without any effort on the players' parts. An eidolon is breakable. A 3.5 druid was broken.
i fully respect that a DM should enjoy a game just as much as any player but i find any time a DM "Outlaw" material from a game because he see's it as "Broken" i fell like he is imposing his enjoyment over mine.
Ew. I really wish gamers and gaming companies would quit promoting this attitude. The DM isn't 'just another player' because the DM is the one who does 90% of the work and, more importantly, the one who is responsible for making sure everybody has fun, which means making the game run smoothly. Sometimes, that means certain things are out.
A DM is allowed to impose his rule over your enjoyment for the exact reason that a judge can overrule a lawyer or a director gets to make changes to a script without an actor's approval: Somebody has to be in charge.
This doesn't mean a DM is all-powerful. DMs who lord their power over their players usually lose them. And, honestly, if a player has a concept he or she wishes to play (and it works within the context of the game) I do think it's the DM's responsibility to try to make that happen, and smart DMs will take player suggestions into account.
Mind you, I get a lot of what you're saying. I think a lot of gamers have played too many MMOs and forgotten that, in tabletop, balance doesn't really matter. But somebody's got to decide where the line is, and that's the DM.
we have always used the rule that if the creators make it then it is in the game no questions asked even in 3.0 and 3.5 DnD.
i DM once in a while and as far as i am concerned everyone's enjoyment is as important as each others and just because i think something is too powerful doesn't mean it is fair to any one who wants to use it if i just throw it out and say too bad i didn't like it.
if you can find a loophole more power to ya, i think that if you find a combination of race/class/feat that no one would have thought would have been powerful but is really powerful than awesome, good work.
one thing you need to remember is that the next time you remove something from your game you might be removing something some one really loves, imagine if one thing in the game you really like got banned, imagine if everyone at your table all of a sudden had the option to ban something, would you be scared that something you really like would be removed?
what if something you really like seems over powered to your gamers, how fair would it seem to them that you get to keep your powerful thing but you ban theirs?
it is one thing to be prepared it is another to say "oh that's broken you cant use it"
a good DM would let you play what is in the book and design a game around it, not give up and say no.
just for a second imagine you favorite thing in the game, something as far as you are concerned is just a fine power wise being banned because some one else thinks its broken.
so you say rather than be a DM and prepare your game based on your players you would rather just remove something because your lazy
|
I suppose we will all have our own opinions. The other side of the coin is this: I have seen games get wrecked because the GM let anything in. One person often thinks of an ingenious way to create an exceptionally powerful combination. Then I have often seen other players get frustrated, this soon is followed by one of two things. Either the DM tries to “fix” things and he irritates the player with the super combo in question, or the player in question becomes bored for lack of challenges. The DM finds himself in a position where he had to create two challenges, one for the “uber” pc, and one for everyone else.
Things get banned all the time. GMs like to tinker with the rules to fit their own tastes.
For example, I happen to like the 3.5 expanded psionics rules. Often these rules get flat out banned for a variety of reasons.
That being said, I think the DM is free to define the parameters of his game. The acid test of course is weather the players stick around for the game.
Everyone is going to have their own opinion on what is “balanced”. And some players will be better able to play “judo” with the rules and twist them into whatever sort of pretzel they want for their own advantage. This can be done with any game system.
The GM might want to make sure that everyone’s character is relatively equally powered. He may do this to make sure everyone is having fun at the table, not just one person.
In terms of new materiel, I like most of the stuff put out in the APG. I think the classes for the most part have been very well put together and I think they are excellent additions to the game, providing something new and interesting to play.
That being said, I am not fond of the Summoner. It is a class I will not allow in my home games.
My reasons for “banning” the summoner are this. I would prefer the core classes to remain optimal choices. I would prefer the Conjurer wizard, or the druid, to remain the best character classes at summoning. My next reason is experiential. Over the past few months while playing in a Pathfinder Organized play group, I have watched Eidelons out fight the party’s main melee combatant. (Fighter, barbarian etc). I also think it is exceedingly powerful to have shortened a summon spell to a standard action, and to make the summoned monsters stay for minutes instead of rounds. Oh the Haste spell is a second level spell on their spell list, and they gain access to it at 4th level.
However in a Pathfinder organized play game they are in.
Anyways those are just my two cents.
.
i share the DM seat with everyone else in my group, so we all DM from time to time.
if an errata is made for something in the game then we follow the errata but until one is made we follow the books.
before the thread goes any further i want to apologize if i sounded snarky or rude, i don't mean to, this is just a hot button topic for me, it is my biggest pet peeve in rpg's like pathfinder.
my real problem with banning things really comes down to one person namely the DM decides and everyone else doesn't actually get a real vote, sure they can protest but in the end the DM usually sticks to their gut reaction.
i will say that i am much more comfortable if everyone in the gaming group agrees on something needing to be altered or even banned i just don't like the "this is my game and i am the DM and you cant play it"
everyone has something in the game that they think is overpowered but if everyone banned those things then so much material would be lost.
the eidolon is more than just breakable. it's extremely easily breakable. it can be built around being stronger than any mere cookie cutter great wyrm dragon. and as strong if not stronger than most gods.
If I've told you once, I've told you a billion times, people exaggerate on the internet...
I Lol'd at least.