1. "My players don't try to do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it's not broken."
3. "Use Rule 0."
These are the kinds of things that drive people who understand some of the more intricate aspects of the system away. We are forced into the situation where we are fighting an ever-incoming tide of ignorance and fail. Paizo cannot make a better game with this nonsense polluting their boards--what we will be left with is a shell of a game whose merit was blown because a bunch of "yes-men" dumped all over everyone who had good ideas.
Developer worship is bad. It's what caused a large number of problems in 4e--especially when the developers themselves took the stance that they could do no wrong.
Allow me to restate all this succinctly:
If you make these arguments, you are ruining the game.
Yes. You read that correctly. You are literally ruining the game for everyone who wants a solid, more balanced system than what 3.5 offered. You are literally ruining the game for everyone who wants to avoid a slew of house-rules that he or she had to adopt to make 3e function properly. You are literally ruining the game for people who see the potential that Pathfinder has.
Do you know why these arguments are fail-tacular? Allow me to show you the light by providing examples of each one.
1. "My players have never had a problem with the difference in power levels between fighters and wizards. Everything is fine; don't change fighters or wizards."
2. "I took away the druid's ability to [3e] wild shape and cast ninth-level spells, so the class isn't broken. Don't change the druid class at all."
3. "One time, one of my players was trying to use [3e] shapechange to turn into a choker to cast an extra spell in the round. I said that he couldn't, so it's not broken."
Please, for the love of the game, stop making these arguments.
|
My players have never had a problem with fighters and wizards in the same group.
Heh.
Seriously though, hearing about how other groups use their wizards (and get away with it even) made me realize why we have fewer problems with things like the 15 minute adventuring day. Our wizards tend to not hog the spotlight and therefore don't blow all their spells on one encounter. Furthermore, our group tends not to rest until the cleric is actually out of heals and the fighter is too beat up to go any further.
Sorry that our playstyle has ruined the game for you.
Yes, I was frustrated by some of these types of arguments while discussing the various verions of the Alpha rules. I think Pathfinder would be better served avoiding these types of arguments.
Instead, stick to facts and help everyone make a better game. If you think a rule is better left as written in 3.5 then give good reasons why and not a "I wouldn't allow that in my game" response.
1. "My players don't try to do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it's not broken."
3. "Use Rule 0."
Fair enough, so we need some the other way, please don't use these arguments to try and promote 'improvements':
- It's a tiny change
- It's not overpowered
- If you don't like it then don't use it
- It won't affect gameplay at all
My players have never had a problem with fighters and wizards in the same group.
Heh.
Seriously though, hearing about how other groups use their wizards (and get away with it even) made me realize why we have fewer problems with things like the 15 minute adventuring day. Our wizards tend to not hog the spotlight and therefore don't blow all their spells on one encounter. Furthermore, our group tends not to rest until the cleric is actually out of heals and the fighter is too beat up to go any further.
Sorry that our playstyle has ruined the game for you.
this is how it was for me too alot of the issue othe people have I have never seen with my group..was inlighting
|
|
1. "My players don't try to do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it's not broken."
3. "Use Rule 0."These are the kinds of things that drive people who understand some of the more intricate aspects of the system away. We are forced into the situation where we are fighting an ever-incoming tide of ignorance and fail. Paizo cannot make a better game with this nonsense polluting their boards--what we will be left with is a shell of a game whose merit was blown because a bunch of "yes-men" dumped all over everyone who had good ideas.
Developer worship is bad. It's what caused a large number of problems in 4e--especially when the developers themselves took the stance that they could do no wrong.
Allow me to restate all this succinctly:
If you make these arguments, you are ruining the game.
Yes. You read that correctly. You are literally ruining the game for everyone who wants a solid, more balanced system than what 3.5 offered. You are literally ruining the game for everyone who wants to avoid a slew of house-rules that he or she had to adopt to make 3e function properly. You are literally ruining the game for people who see the potential that Pathfinder has.
Do you know why these arguments are fail-tacular? Allow me to show you the light by providing examples of each one.
1. "My players have never had a problem with the difference in power levels between fighters and wizards. Everything is fine; don't change fighters or wizards."
2. "I took away the druid's ability to [3e] wild shape and cast ninth-level spells, so the class isn't broken. Don't change the druid class at all."
3. "One time, one of my players was trying to use [3e] shapechange to turn into a choker to cast an extra spell in the round. I said that he couldn't, so it's not broken."
Please, for the love of the game, stop making these arguments.
Please stop interpreting anyone who disputes your assumptions or what passes as logic as someone who is making one of the three listed arguments.
Please stop refering to anyone happy with most of the current developments as "yes-men"
Please stop justifying confrontational posting as "justifiable" if the (self assessed) value of your comment is deemed high enough (by you).
try to abide by those requests and I think we can talk.
By the way, I honestly think that the game will turn out fine with or without our input.
|
I would say this sort of thing is valid, within reason. I recall one post, on another forum, where someone was ranting about how he didn't like the Pathfinder rules, and cited the fact that he believed Astral Projection could be abused to duplicate magic items.
To this I replied, "No DM in their right mind would ever seriously let a player do this - it's blatant abuse."
There are certain things that do need to be addressed, certainly, but there is a point where common sense comes in. Stuff like the example he was citing are the sort of thing that would more likely come up in a computer game, where the "DM" is mindlessly implementing the set of parameters it's been given.
If you make these arguments, you are ruining the game.
Yes. You read that correctly. You are literally ruining the game for everyone who wants a solid, more balanced system than what 3.5 offered. You are literally ruining the game for everyone who wants to avoid a slew of house-rules that he or she had to adopt to make 3e function properly. You are literally ruining the game for people who see the potential that Pathfinder has.
Finally! Ultimate power is within my grasp!
[BLACKMAIL ALERT!]
If people don't pony up free lunches for the rest of my life, I'll ruin Pathfinder for everyone! Everyone, I say!
My Rule 0 arguement will send all threads into flaming ruin! Feed me or I'll bleed the game dry and send your children to the dark age of gaming with only rational distractions like Old Maid and Bridge to soothe their itch.
I am hungry and am not to be trifled with!
Mr. Buhlman, you are my puppet and must blindly accept the ultimate power of my Rule 0! I, not you, will decide how Pathfinder will be played. Playtesting and rationale be damned!
Then, once my least of Maslow's needs are secure, I'll turn the might Rule 0 against larger targets, like world hunger and Wal-Mart.
Rule 0!
Rule 0!
Rule 0!
|
|
Last I checked this was an open-playtest report where they wanted player feedback and actual playtesting and if my playtesting shows me something is okay then Im going to post it. If something seems fine the way it is im going to mention it Because thankfully I have faith in the Paizo team. If they believe a suggestion has merit they will support it, if they feel a change is nessesay because of player feedback they will do it.
|
I would say this sort of thing is valid, within reason. I recall one post, on another forum, where someone was ranting about how he didn't like the Pathfinder rules, and cited the fact that he believed Astral Projection could be abused to duplicate magic items.
To this I replied, "No DM in their right mind would ever seriously let a player do this - it's blatant abuse."
There are certain things that do need to be addressed, certainly, but there is a point where common sense comes in. Stuff like the example he was citing are the sort of thing that would more likely come up in a computer game, where the "DM" is mindlessly implementing the set of parameters it's been given.
I think this is where I fall as well.
I have to admit, I have been gaming for 24 years and this is the first time I have ever come across the issues being raised in some of these threads. I even consider myself fairly well versed in the rules. I guess, in some ways, my eyes were really opened.
That said, I don't think my personal experience is a good enough reason not to fix an issue. On the other hand, I don't think expressing my opinion that said activity has never been an issue in my game is grounds for dismissing the statement out of hand. Oftentimes I will qualify my statement by saying "this isn't an issue for me, but so long as we cleave to the PFRPG design tenets the problem might need to be fixed."
|
|
1. "My players don't try to do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it's not broken."
3. "Use Rule 0."Fair enough, so we need some the other way, please don't use these arguments to try and promote 'improvements':
- It's a tiny change
- It's not overpowered
- If you don't like it then don't use it
- It won't affect gameplay at all
you forgot the constant use of the bolded YOU'RE WRONG!
1. "My players don't try to do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it's not broken."
3. "Use Rule 0."
What you also have to start to understand PR, is that no matter how much attention is paid to any issue you feel is broken, resourceful players will always find a way to break something else, if that is their intention.
That doesn't mean all these areas need fixing.
|
|
That doesn't mean all these areas need fixing.
On this I agree. I am not certain some of these extreme issues are really things that need to be fixed. Or, if they do, what is the real solution?
I am of the opinion that certain "problems" are really only "problems" for a small section of the gaming population. The efreet wish machine is a good example. Is that really an issue that deserves the amount of time that is needed to fix it? When does common sense and DM fiat come into play?
Other "problems" (I use that term loosely) have always been a feature of D&D. Eliminating those takes us away from the design tenets of Pathfinder.
Chris Mortika said it best when he stated:
If a rule isn't fulfilling its purpose, it should be fixed; we're agreed on that. If a set of rules can be abused outside of its purpose, then that's not so much a problem with the rules.
|
|
These are the kinds of things that drive people who understand some of the more intricate aspects of the system away. We are forced into the situation where we are fighting an ever-incoming tide of ignorance and fail. Paizo cannot make a better game with this nonsense polluting their boards--what we will be left with is a shell of a game whose merit was blown because a bunch of "yes-men" dumped all over everyone who had good ideas.
I think I'm a little confused. Paizo cannot make a better game? For some reason you seem to think that they cannot sift through all the information that comes across these boards to take a good look at the ones that actually matter.
And you really think that regardless of what ends up happening with this thing that we (I'm still not entirely sure how much of "we" you really represent) will end up with "a shell of a game"? Even if that were going to be true -- which I don't see in the first place -- but if it did happen, that would mean that the vast majority wanted it that way as opposed to the way you want and it wouldn't be a shell to the majority and the majority would be happy.
If you really don't think that your opinion is being heard, why are you continuing to post? Why would you think that anything I would say would carry more weight than anything you said?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I am of the opinion that certain "problems" are really only "problems" for a small section of the gaming population. The efreet wish machine is a good example. Is that really an issue that deserves the amount of time that is needed to fix it? When does common sense and DM fiat come into play?
There are a number of issues that have been identified with 3.x that do fall into the “obscure abusable mechanic” category. These corner cases are disproportionately highlighted as examples of how 3.5 is “broken”. This in itself is reason enough to fix these loopholes – as a public relations exercise to quiet the part of the community that is prone to obsessive rules mongering (which is part of the fun some gamers get from the hobby).
These are Paizo’s potential customers too. A vocal, opinionated, messageboard-itinerant set of customers, who, if won over, will be on every messageboard that is ragging on the 3.5 rule set saying “Yeah, but 3.P fixed that, go and have a look”.
If it doesn’t hurt your other customers to make the change, then there is no reason not to.
You know those stories about industrial pollution that always have the stock clips of plumes of nasty white gasses escaping from towers at oil refineries. That’s fricken steam. That’s how 3.5 is seen in some circles. It looks bad, but it’s actually quite harmless if you follow the safety signs. However - 3.P needs to put a condenser on its cooling towers so that amateur reviewers don’t have these stock clips as ammunition to take pot shots with. [/mixed metaphors]
|
<said a lot of great stuff>
But I still think you're wrong.
Someone else more elegantly said somewhere else that D&D is not a video game. Classes do not need to be balanced. Races do not need to be balanced.
A high level wizard should be able to always wup a high level fighter (as long as the wizard is smart enough to stay more than 1 round of movement away from the warrior's sword).
House rules are important to a system this complicated. Not every group of players plays the game the same way. There is no One Rule System to rule them all.
People should voice their opinions - it helps define trends. Vocal people on the internet do not represent the population as a whole...
|
|
House rules are important to a system this complicated. Not every group of players plays the game the same way. There is no One Rule System to rule them all.
Excellent points. Not sure about "house rules are important" though...
More from a different point of view -- I would hate to be locked into a system that allowed for absolutely no flexibility for every boneheaded bizarre idea that my group comes up with. I still like to use my brain.
Even if that were going to be true -- which I don't see in the first place -- but if it did happen, that would mean that the vast majority wanted it that way as opposed to the way you want and it wouldn't be a shell to the majority and the majority would be happy.
And often times, the majority of people are dumb.
The majority of people probably felt that shapechange was fine. The majority] of people probably never had any problems with gate. The majority of people probably never had any problems with druids dominating the game because most players don't go through the rulesbooks trying to find the strongest animal to turn into.
And often times, the majority of people are dumb.
From your agrument, you're implying that I am dumb. I assure you that I can speak quite well.
You're special Psychic_Robot. Don't you ever forget that.
No. The majority of people don't try to ruin the game for others. For some reason you think that the minority will change with the perfect system. Good luck with that.
And they're still dumb.
|
|
And often times, the majority of people are dumb.The majority of people probably felt that shapechange was fine. The majority] of people probably never had any problems with gate. The majority of people probably never had any problems with druids dominating the game because most players don't go through the rulesbooks trying to find the strongest animal to turn into.
I am not sure how this makes them dumb, per se. It might mean a whole host of things, actually.
Now, how this statement makes you look is something else entirely.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Please stop making the following assumptions in discussions about possible rule changes:
1. "If you make argument X, you are ruining the game for everyone."
2. "If you disagree with me, you do not understand the more intricate aspects of the system."
3. "The game is about mechanics, not story."
1. The point of an open playtest is to encourage a diversity of responses. That diversity is fostered through its openness. Several Paizo staff members have even recommended swallowing a certain amount of rudeness if it resulted in a greater diversity of opinions. As hard as that is, I agree with it. Suggesting, at such an early stage in the playtest, that making an argument ruins the game misunderstands the way dialogue works, underestimates the intelligence of the game designers, and discounts the possibility that a neglected point of view might result in something unusuallly cool (e.g., the Internet).
2. People may disagree with you because their playing styles are different from yours. By encouraging a people with different playing styles and concerns to get involved, we will have a greater range of opinions.
3. 'Loopholes' in the system may not be loopholes at all. As the example of the Efreet makes clear, a non-mechanical, story-driven aspect of the game may give the players good reasons for not stepping through that loophole. In fact, said loophole may be a munchkin trap.
Just a casual observation: No matter what rules get adopted, sneaky rules lawyers will always find a loophole and abuse the system. There is no perfect system, and trying to create an airtight set of rules is destined to fail. Part of the magic of tabletop is being able to use the rules to craft a story. Rules are there to give the element of chance to a game session, and part of the onus of a DM/GM/Storyteller is to interpret the rules so that they do not end up in a broken game. Personally I don't see why players would want to break a game in the first place.
Player 1: If I do X, Y and Z I have a million wishes! I'm king of the world!
DM: Yes ..yes you are. That was a fun game... <sigh> Let's roll some new characters shall we?
Just a casual observation: No matter what rules get adopted, sneaky rules lawyers will always find a loophole and abuse the system. There is no perfect system, and trying to create an airtight set of rules is destined to fail. Part of the magic of tabletop is being able to use the rules to craft a story. Rules are there to give the element of chance to a game session, and part of the onus of a DM/GM/Storyteller is to interpret the rules so that they do not end up in a broken game. Personally I don't see why players would want to break a game in the first place.
Player 1: If I do X, Y and Z I have a million wishes! I'm king of the world!
DM: Yes ..yes you are. That was a fun game... <sigh> Let's roll some new characters shall we?
I've had a couple of players over my years who always think D&D is a closed system in which the rules must apply as written so that their exploit will work. I never play with those people again.
|
|
Even if that were going to be true -- which I don't see in the first place -- but if it did happen, that would mean that the vast majority wanted it that way as opposed to the way you want and it wouldn't be a shell to the majority and the majority would be happy.And often times, the majority of people are dumb.
The majority of people probably felt that shapechange was fine. The majority] of people probably never had any problems with gate. The majority of people probably never had any problems with druids dominating the game because most players don't go through the rulesbooks trying to find the strongest animal to turn into.
So its the problem here the majority--or the minority? How many problems did this minority have that weren't a) strictly theoretical, or b) due to weak rules arbitration by the DM?
There are always going to corner cases and loopholes. That is unavoidable--no system is entirely foolproof. That's part of why we have DMs--it's their job to fairly adjudicate any rules issues that may crop up. Obsessing about corner cases and obscure loopholes doesn't help the game. The focus should be on larger issues.
|
|
And they're still dumb.
So what you're really saying from all your obfuscation in the initial post is...
"The majority of you are dumb. Stop posting."
Isn't that much easier? I'm sure that the game designers have already seen your brilliance and are already putting all your posts at the top of their lists. Since they have already done this there really isn't any further need to infer the obvious lack of other supreme intelligence from other posters. Please continue to post your incredible intelligence and please ignore the moronic posts from the masses. I see now that the only posts that matter are yours and will read your posts in the future with that in mind.
I heartily agree with the opening remarks. People who say that "We can simply houserule things that we don't like, or that are broken" are missing the point.
If you purchased a new car, shiny, flashy and all that, and it broke down before it reached the corner, you're reaction would not be "That's alright, I'll just fix it..."
Expect a good system that doesn't require houserules. That's our right as consumers - to purchase an operable product. I personally would like to pick up a game and be able to play it as it's written, from the book, with no ignoring of stupid pointless rules, or things that make arguments. No banning classes because they are unbalanced.
This is why Pathfinder kicks some serious butt. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING CAN BE FIXED DOES NOT MEAN IT ISN'T BROKEN. Paizo offers us the chance to say what we had to houserule, and why. Tell them what is wrong, so they can fix it. That's the point.
Thus endeth the lesson.
|
|
People who say that "We can simply houserule things that we don't like, or that are broken" are missing the point.
Three things.
First -- you're right. If there is something that is being houseruled -- especially on a consistent basis -- then it should be fixed. So say what it is that you have had issues with in the past and the designers will take a look at it and see if it is worth their time and effort to address.
Second -- I disagree. Something as convoluted and complex as a "realistic" gaming system is (and probably should) have holes in it. That's not to say that it can't be cleaned up a bit. But to expect it to be some idea of "perfect" I believe is unrealistic.
Third -- That's not what the OP said. I have seen a lot of people say "It isn't broke, don't fix it". I have seen a lot of people say "This is something that I houserule". But I haven't seen someone say both. But then perhaps I'm not looking hard enough at the "majority".
Actually, one more point, I was re-reading the last few posts, and I saw something that caught my eye.
Something about the mechanics not being more important than the story.
Now, I don't want to sound self-righteous, or stupid, but what I can't understand how in a rulebook, a book that provides mechanics, the story is more important. The story is more important at the table, more important in planning a character, and in playing, but in a mechanics book, I have to think that the mechanics are most important.
The mechanics must make the story playable, and the reason I don't like 4th ed is that it doesn't give mechanics for the story to work with. It's all combat. The story hangs upon the use of the mechanics. Great games are often ruined by poor mechanical understanding; not knowing what to do, when...
|
|
...JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING CAN BE FIXED DOES NOT MEAN IT ISN'T BROKEN. Paizo offers us the chance to say what we had to houserule, and why. Tell them what is wrong, so they can fix it. That's the point.
You're absolutely right. Let's fix as much as we can.
...and, I'd rather spend time reading threads about suggestions to larger changes, like what many see as an overpowered generalist wizard, problematic rage points, stuff like that. (Never mind those aren't the chapters we're being asked to focus on right now) The bind-wish loophole can be fixed, sure. But is it really such a priority that it's worth arguing about, on either side? Is it worth such venom?
(I wasn't referring to you, Blakeus, as bringing venom here, just a meta-comment on the thread).
But is it really such a priority that it's worth arguing about, on either side? Is it worth such venom?
I can't answer that until someone tells me the current price of venom. I haven't shopped it since the late 80's.
|
|
Great games are often ruined by poor mechanical understanding; not knowing what to do, when...
Is that the "fault" of the mechanics or the DM? (I put fault in quotes because my experience is that "fault" is overcome through practice and experience like so many other things.)
I for one don't need nor do I want a rule book 8,000 pages long that cover every possibly concieved event that my players may or may not come up with on their own. Give me a workable framework where I can make the decisions as I need to.
I'm not sure either. I stock-piled it for Y2K, haven't bought it in a while.But is it really such a priority that it's worth arguing about, on either side? Is it worth such venom?I can't answer that until someone tells me the current price of venom. I haven't shopped it since the late 80's.
Well, at least your application made sense in a 'nothing left, let's end it' sorta way. I really blew it on my Kobrapops! I thought kids would love sucking on candy with real snake in it. By the end of the first production month I found it necessary to change my name and move to Montevideo. It's tough being an entrepreneur, man.
How about vitriol?But is it really such a priority that it's worth arguing about, on either side? Is it worth such venom?I can't answer that until someone tells me the current price of venom. I haven't shopped it since the late 80's.
On some website forums, it appears to be unsparing and complimentary.
I for one don't need nor do I want a rule book 8,000 pages long that cover every possibly concieved event that my players may or may not come up with on their own. Give me a workable framework where I can make the decisions as I need to.
Well put. I'm not a great mathematician or logician, but anyone who's read Godel, Escher, and Bach will understand the scepticism with which I would view any attempt at such a ruleset. Large, completely consistent systems are very difficult to design. A few basic rules, a little common sense, and a large dose of "if you don't like it why don't you try running the game, I'm sorry , a large dose of fair play will go quite as far as a ponderous "comprehensive" rules tome.
Well, at least your application made sense in a 'nothing left, let's end it' sorta way. I really blew it on my Kobrapops! I thought kids would love sucking on candy with real snake in it. By the end of the first production month I found it necessary to change my name and move to Montevideo. It's tough being an entrepreneur, man.
LOL.
Well put. I'm not a great mathematician or logician, but anyone who's read Godel, Escher, and Bach will understand the scepticism with which I would view any attempt at such a ruleset. Large, completely consistent systems are very difficult to design. A few basic rules, a little common sense, and a large dose of "if you don't like it why don't you try running the game, I'm sorry , a large dose of fair play will go quite as far as a ponderous "comprehensive" rules tome.
There's always Fantasy Wargaming if we want a game so complex its functionally unplayable.
My initial thought was that the O.P had an almost valid point (don't just make a statement, cite an easy escape and leave it at that) until I scrolled down to the 'dumb' comment.
That prompted me to make a few suggestions of my own:
First, don't begin a sentence with a conjunction and call other people 'dumb'. That doesn't help your cause. This one is a slap on the wrist for insulting your fellow gamers.
Second, avoid posting (as far as I can tell) intentionally inflammatory comments. It negates your credibility. I'm honestly trying to help you with this suggestion because you might have had a partially valid point if you had approached it from a different angle.
Finally, unless you are absolutely certain that your bulleted points are invalid arguments (which you cannot be - too many variables are left undefined and people have a right to their opinions), maybe you should just focus on not using them yourself. Making suggestions (like I am now) helps people improve. You are trying to assert a prohibitation you have no right (or ability) to enforce.
I hope this helps. Have a great day.
|
|
As painful as it is reading PR's ideas/posts etc...I mean like red hot poker up the tukus painful...It's strangely entertaining watching him get tweaked like this. Probably because crazy rants won't carry much weight with the designers in the end (perhaps why you feel they didn't listen to your ideas before during the Alpha). Which means that unfortunately I think PF is just setting himself up for even more disappointment.
It's unfortunate because PR, you probably do present some great ideas. The presentation however is like serving up a great steak on a plate of dog sh*t. I just can't get past the dog sh*t. ie. the majority of people being dumb comment or that people that are happy with the current state of Pathfinder are ruining the game for YOU(and others comments that I won't go into). As soon as comments like that come into play, I just can't get on board with you. Not that you care I'm sure. That's your choice. I honestly wish that I could.
We all have house rules. Some of those might be just the right piece to make everyone else's game just that much better. As long as we all agree, "The GM is always right", the game will go on. Any Game master not in control of his world might as well hang up the shield. The rules are the framework of the game. Trust in the GM is the way a game is successful.
When I was eighteen I was a know it all. My mother said, "Rone, a question you might want to ask yourself from time to time is, 'Is it even possible that I could be wrong?'"
It was said off the cuff, with no severity, but it turned my world upside down. I was never the same. I find when I'm feeling most righteous about being right is the time where I'm likely just plain wrong, or worse, missing the larger point.
I don't hold much stake in being right anymore, or in being better than the next guy. I just work on my own game.
If you make these arguments, you are ruining the game.
Yes. You read that correctly. You are literally ruining the game for everyone who wants a solid, more balanced system than what 3.5 offered.
No. They are not ruining the game for everyone, they are ruining the game for YOU, and you ONLY, because you think the the game revolves around you.
Stop being a pompous prick.
This is actually called the Oberoni Fallacy: "just because you can fix the rules doesn't mean they aren't broken." So let's say you have a car, and the car's design is pretty bad such that the door stops closing after you've put around 15,000 miles on it. Now, this is a pretty well-known problem and all you need to do to fix it is tie a piece of string onto the door. The design of the car is still bad, you've just found a way to deal with it.
Not that I condone the OP's tone, far from it, but there's a grain of truth in what he's saying.