Be honest, how long would it really take you to notice all of this stuff...?

[Ruin Explorer]

To quote Will Smith - "My attitude is: Don't start nothin', won't BE nothin'." If you look for something, of course you'll find it. The question is whether you need to look for it.

I think there's another issue, though, where a lot of this stuff - you don't look for it, it's right there, it's just presented as a perfectly reasonable option to pick. Yet it might completely change the tone of the game if you do. SR and CP2020 both had stuff you could pick, which, superficially seemed fine (mostly spells in SR, guns/gun enhancements and some cyberware in CP2020), didn't look on-paper very bad, but in practice, holy crap, you couldn't even challenge a guy who had them without potentially either:

1) Making the rest of the PCs largely irrelevant (esp. in CP2020 - enough armour to slow down real offenders would usually make other PCs totally unable to do any harm at all).

2) Potentially killing all the other PCs.

You're not wrong in situations where all the PCs are equally optimized and a player would have to "go looking" to find unbalancing stuff, which is how a lot of RPGs are, of course, but there are a lot where silly stuff is just presented as fine.

Which is to say, I'd prefer a game in which you outthink the enemy in play, not in character build. Far more satisfying, to me.

Definitely, though one can certainly do both. If a whole group is tightly optimized, you can ratchet up the challenge you present them (unless the premise of the game prevents it, in which case something went wrong earlier in the process).

 

[Umbran]

Definitely, though one can certainly do both. If a whole group is tightly optimized...

Yep, if you have that uniform a bunch of people, that's great. But that's a rather specific case that I, at least, have never worked with in practice.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

My only complaint about 3.xE was the time it took as DM to create things. The issues of imbalance between classes etc... never bothered me or my groups: I just DMed to make sure everyone got their spotlight time. But it just took too long to prepare for games.

However, 1E and 2E's flaws really got to me to the point where I am rationally irrational about my dislike of both editions. I still appreciate them but I despise them both. And that's why I can't get behind 5E despite clearly understanding why WotC went in the direction they did with the new edition.

4E? I love it to pieces just the way it is.

 

[Chaltab]

I tend not to notice things that are absolutely broken simply because I don't have enough opportunities to test out everything. I could feel out underpowered my Bard was in the most recent 3.X game I played, though that was exacerbated by a bad DM who built an encounter deliberately overpowered so that a DMPC could be introduced. (Bleh)

I do often completely misread rules and not notice how I've effed up until someone points it out. Like for the first year or so of playing 4E, I didn't realize that Charging was JUST a standard action, and not a move and a standard, and neither did our DM.

 

[Stormonu]

I feel like I had a fairly good understanding of the shortcomings of 3E, but the only time I think I ran into issues when we converted our 1E/2E characters for a short-lived stint. they were about 15th level and I just wasn't ready for the change in power at 3E.

Since then, I've avoided "high level" games, and start winding the game down start about 9th level and pretty much shutting down the campaign by 12th. And really, with that self-induced limitation, I haven't run into any issues that I haven't been able to handle. I know I've had players who have attempted to build powerful characters, but they usually end up being one-trick ponies who then get killed when they run into something where they've built a blindside into their character (and overconfident they could tackle anything). Basically, the long game killed them where they'd built to win the short-term gain.

 

[DMZ2112]

Yep, if you have that uniform a bunch of people, that's great. But that's a rather specific case that I, at least, have never worked with in practice.

Agreed. What I "notice" about the broken parts of the D&D3 continuum is how much individual players get screwed by the presence of other players at a different optimization threshold.

 

[Desdichado]

I feel like I had a fairly good understanding of the shortcomings of 3E, but the only time I think I ran into issues when we converted our 1E/2E characters for a short-lived stint. they were about 15th level and I just wasn't ready for the change in power at 3E.

Since then, I've avoided "high level" games, and start winding the game down start about 9th level and pretty much shutting down the campaign by 12th. And really, with that self-induced limitation, I haven't run into any issues that I haven't been able to handle. I know I've had players who have attempted to build powerful characters, but they usually end up being one-trick ponies who then get killed when they run into something where they've built a blindside into their character (and overconfident they could tackle anything). Basically, the long game killed them where they'd built to win the short-term gain.

This is exactly what I've noticed as well--almost word for word.

Frankly, I think the trade-off is worth it, if a player is willing to accept the limitations of such an "optimized" build. And frankly, I don't really miss the high level play all that much either. I never did like it much or think that it worked well in any edition of D&D, so that it didn't work very well in 3.x family games neither surprises me nor overly distresses me. I just ignore those levels.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

both 2e and 3e flaws where pointed out to me. Once I saw it, I could not unsee it.

Same here. I wasn't very critical of game balance until I became a regular forum-goer. I remember looking at the 3.0 sorcerer and thinking "Its spells are staggered a level behind the wizard, but once it reaches 18th level it can cast spontaneous polar rays...best class evar!!!"

Some fans love new editions because it sets the RESET button on their over-familiarity and system analysis, but not so for me. I can't help analyzing even new rules, on some level; but I wouldn't want to 'unsee' D&D's ugly underbelly. I think it's made me a more thoughtful, tasteful person.

 

[Hedonismbot]

I think there's another issue, though, where a lot of this stuff - you don't look for it, it's right there, it's just presented as a perfectly reasonable option to pick. Yet it might completely change the tone of the game if you do. SR and CP2020 both had stuff you could pick, which, superficially seemed fine (mostly spells in SR, guns/gun enhancements and some cyberware in CP2020), didn't look on-paper very bad, but in practice, holy crap, you couldn't even challenge a guy who had them without potentially either:

1) Making the rest of the PCs largely irrelevant (esp. in CP2020 - enough armour to slow down real offenders would usually make other PCs totally unable to do any harm at all).

2) Potentially killing all the other PCs.

This is, I think, why I can never get behind the 'just don't be an optimizer and everything will work out fine' issue. I've taken things that seemed fine and then ended up completely overshadowing other players, and also had other players fall into the same thing and overshadow me. I'd rather have a set of tools to flag stuff that might break the game ahead of time.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'd rather have a set of tools to flag stuff that might break the game ahead of time.

Anything might break the game.

Or to be more clear, anything with any meaningful benefit has a very real chance of breaking the game, if you define breaking the game narrowly.