The fault of a bad DM.

[Diamond Cross]

I don't agree that a system can be flawed, but I find there are flaws in some systems.

For example, in the original Traveler it was extremely hard to improve your character once it was generated.

In D&D 3e it was a flaw to make it too easy to multi-class. Because when it first came out there were players who going to have their character take one level in every single class there is.

And sometimes powers are written poorly.

Some game systems are very complicated or just rules heavy. I'm not sure if that is a flaw in and of itself. But as for myself I won't touch them except for adventure ideas.

 

[BryonD]

That sword cuts both ways. If a flawed tool is to your tastes, you will rationalize and defend the existence of said flawed tool. People are just as quick to defend real flaws in games they like.

Actually, this reasoning only applies *AFTER* you demonstrate that the flaw exists.

A total beginner can grab Yo Yo Ma's cello and make screeching noises. And they will be incapable of doing much better. Yo Yo Ma playing a virtuoso performance on the same instrument proves that it is not flawed. Complementing his performance is not a rationalization of a flaw, it is proof that the flaw was in the beginner, not the instrument. Once the beginner is removed from the equation there is no need to rationalize, because no flaw remains.

 

[BryonD]

To me the issue is not "Bad Dms don't exist".

It's the assumption that if a DM has an issue with X, he's a bad DM, and if he was a Better DM he wouldn't have an issue with X. Where X is a facet of the game system.

It could be, hypothetically, that an otherwise great DM is really bad at handling flight. Everyone agrees he is a really good DM. But, for whatever reason, he just sucks at dealing with flight and whenever it comes up the game goes sideways.
It still is not a problem with flight, it is a problem with the DM.

 

[innerdude]

In a sense, this whole thread is an adjunct to the "Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design" thread.

The real question is--how much preparation should the average GM be expected to spend on a weekly/monthly basis to produce the best possible sessions/campaign?

Obviously, the rules system as a whole plays a big part in this. Probably the three biggest criticisms of D&D 3.x were A. Magic classes outshone their counterparts B. High-level play was difficult to manage or GM, and as a result, C. GM prep time was too high.

Well, 2 of the 3 biggest criticisms of the 3.x system are directly GM-preparation related. And 4e's paradigms of character, monster, and encounter design were developed as a direct result.

But the underlying point of this is that D&D is very much adversarial in its designs--it's a combat- and challenge-focused system, where the goal is to put the power in the hands of the players to face the challenges placed in front of them.

There are other rules systems that fall under a completely different set of assumptions about the nature of the player and GM's relationship, that don't have nearly the same amount of "adversarial" tendencies.

Each system has an expected level of GM "preparation" that ultimately "fits" that system's needs.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I don't agree that a system can be flawed, but I find there are flaws in some systems.

For example, in the original Traveler it was extremely hard to improve your character once it was generated.

Are you sure that was a flaw? I remember playing the original Traveler, having tons of fun, and never once thinking it was "flawed" because my characters didn't improve much over time.

In D&D 3e it was a flaw to make it too easy to multi-class. Because when it first came out there were players who going to have their character take one level in every single class there is.

Again, I don't consider that a "flaw" at all. 3E's easy multiclassing was, IMO, a huge improvement over previous editions of the game. And people who took one level in every class soon figured out why that was a bad idea; the "flaw" was self-correcting.

And sometimes powers are written poorly.

No argument there.

Some game systems are very complicated or just rules heavy. I'm not sure if that is a flaw in and of itself.

(It's not.)

But as for myself I won't touch them except for adventure ideas.

Fair enough.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I would contend that if a tool is the tool of choice of a fantastic DM and that DM can do outstanding things with it, then it is obviously not a flawed tool.


It may well be that it takes skill to use the tool, and other tools are needed for DMs who are not yet (or perhaps never will be) able to use a more advanced tool. And the existence of these tools is a very good thing.

But to blame failure on a demonstrated tool rather than the artist is just sour grapes.

Ok, not to get gross...but.

There are high quality paints and low quality paints. A good painter can do a better job with the good ones, but can still do a great job with the low quality ones....a much better job than I (a bad/nonpainter) can do with even the best paints of all (and perhaps even a paint by number board.

Now, some artists have been known to use feces, blood, and more as their art medium. I doubt anyone would call blood or feces an "excellent paint" or even an "excellent medium" for art... but their paintings are STILL gonna be better than mine.

Body fluids in art - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Psion]

It should work under someone with Decent DMing skills. And if it breaks down under an average DM, then it's a flaw. Otherwise it's like selling a "Do-It-Yourself" kit, expecting only exceptional skilled users to use the kit.

I don't agree that necessarily follows, no. Is a semi truck "broken" because it takes a different skill set (and in most jurisdictions, different licensing) than a standard consumer automobile?

For that matter, break it down a bit and ask is a manual transmission flawed if it takes a bit more skill to use than an automatic? Speaking as someone who prefers the control of a manual, I don't think so.

Translate it back to the gaming realm, I think that some systems will deliver certain capabilities to a user with the right skill set that might not be the "norm" that they couldn't do with system with broader usability. For those people, that system is better.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Actually, this reasoning only applies *AFTER* you demonstrate that the flaw exists.

A total beginner can grab Yo Yo Ma's cello and make screeching noises. And they will be incapable of doing much better. Yo Yo Ma playing a virtuoso performance on the same instrument proves that it is not flawed. Complementing his performance is not a rationalization of a flaw, it is proof that the flaw was in the beginner, not the instrument. Once the beginner is removed from the equation there is no need to rationalize, because no flaw remains.

Certain things are a matter of taste, and certain things are not. Getting deeper in terms of system theory, I'm finding that certain things like high/low magic, level of simulation, heavy/light rules and such are a matter of taste. Flawed rules are flawed not based on what they are but how they are. The most fault I find with RPG rules these days is a lack of transparency. Does the rule accomplish what it sets out to do, and does the rule make itself clear on what it is supposed to do and how it supposed to be used? The other place I find flaw is the interaction of rules with the system as a whole. A rule that conflicts with the system as a whole is a flawed rule.

 

[Desdichado]

That sword cuts both ways. If a flawed tool is to your tastes, you will rationalize and defend the existence of said flawed tool. People are just as quick to defend real flaws in games they like.

Sure, that's the flip side of it. We've heard a lot of that perspective in this thread already so I'm describing the other side a bit.

I think that there is an awful lot of "I tried this and it didn't work at my table. Therefore it's flawed." declarative statements on the internet.

And a lot of times, when people tell them that they're just doing it wrong, they're absolutely right.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Sure, that's the flip side of it. We've heard a lot of that perspective in this thread already so I'm describing the other side a bit.

I think that there is an awful lot of "I tried this and it didn't work at my table. Therefore it's flawed." declarative statements on the internet.

And a lot of times, when people tell them that they're just doing it wrong, they're absolutely right.

Which is why I go back to my definition of a flawed rule as a rule that isn't transparent, or doesn't work as intended. If a DM has trouble with a rule that doesn't make itself clear, or fails to work as intended by the designers, I don't consider that the fault of the DM. I don't consider the ability of "good DMs" to mitigate these issues to make them a "bad DM" either.