The fault of a bad DM.

[Rechan]

And systems can have flaws that are a universal problem that the DM must go to greater lengths to take care of.

How many times has "4e is Grindy" come up? It seems to be a pretty regular complaint and common experience*. I would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks Grind is Good. And one that, to combat, a DM must take active measures to decrease it**. Given that high HP + defenses not always balanced with to-hit (pre Expertise, soldiers (especially elite/solo ones) and missing with high damage encounter/dailies, leading to a longer encounter, HOW is it 4e is not flawed in terms of Grind Risk?

Or are DMs that just let 4e get grindy at fault? Even if it happens in the Maths, well that's just their fault?

*I'm aware that some tables don't experience grind. It may be somewhat subjective. But considering the volume of the experience, there's something going on.
**I'm aware that some DMs don't need to actively address it because it's not popping up at their table. They're clearly doing something right.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

And systems can have flaws that are a universal problem that the DM must go to greater lengths to take care of.

How many times has "4e is Grindy" come up? It seems to be a pretty regular complaint and common experience*. I would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks Grind is Good. And one that, to combat, a DM must take active measures to decrease it**. Given that high HP + defenses not always balanced with to-hit (pre Expertise, soldiers (especially elite/solo ones) and missing with high damage encounter/dailies, leading to a longer encounter, HOW is it 4e is not flawed in terms of Grind Risk?

Or are DMs that just let 4e get grindy at fault? Even if it happens in the Maths, well that's just their fault?

*I'm aware that some tables don't experience grind. It may be somewhat subjective. But considering the volume of the experience, there's something going on.
**I'm aware that some DMs don't need to actively address it because it's not popping up at their table. They're clearly doing something right.

To me, the grind issue of 4E is an example of a lack of transparency and not working as intended. It was not working as intended because it happened "in the Maths", though errata and things like Expertise have put a band-aid on that. It was a lack of transparency because 4E combat was designed to run like a tactical boardgame, and when you don't play aggressively and play to win the game is a lot slower. The fact that a RPG isn't inherently a tactical boardgame, and that many players had previous experiences with RPGs that weren't the highly tuned tactical game 4E made this not completely apparent.

Most of the grind issues at my tables have been solved by playing the game tactically as it was intended, with the help of the math fixes and some finesse as a DM in avoiding some things(multiple PC leaders, too many Soldier/Controller enemies, and Monster Manual 1 Elites/Solos of higher level than the party).

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Well, that sounds good in theory, but in practice, it's extremely rare in this industry for any game to provide transparency, or describe the design process behind the rule and what exactly its intended to do. Rules are just presented as is. Therefore, it is one of the basic skills of a good GM to figure out how any given rule will likely interact with the guys at his table. Its one of the basic, fundamental building blocks of good GMing, and only with groups who fundamentally don't care about mechanics at all can get away without having a GM who has developed that skill.

Either you've said that almost every rule of almost every game in the entire industry is flawed, or you've created a carte blanche get out of jail free for every GM out there, that they can never be "bad" GMs when it comes to rules issues.

So, like I said, nice start for a theory. I don't think it really works when reality intrudes, though.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Well, that sounds good in theory, but in practice, it's extremely rare in this industry for any game to provide transparency, or describe the design process behind the rule and what exactly its intended to do. Rules are just presented as is. Therefore, it is one of the basic skills of a good GM to figure out how any given rule will likely interact with the guys at his table. Its one of the basic, fundamental building blocks of good GMing, and only with groups who fundamentally don't care about mechanics at all can get away without having a GM who has developed that skill.

Either you've said that almost every rule of almost every game in the entire industry is flawed, or you've created a carte blanche get out of jail free for every GM out there, that they can never be "bad" GMs when it comes to rules issues.

So, like I said, nice start for a theory. I don't think it really works when reality intrudes, though.

It is a matter of degree. There are rules that aren't exactly clear, and there are rules that are outright confusing or misleading. Compare a game like SWSE which I consider pretty clear to a game like Exalted, for example.

 

[Desdichado]

Am I to take it that you think Exalted is a game full of flawed rules? Because that's a relatively straightforward assessment that I'll think you'll get a lot of disagreement about.

Especially if you were to post it at rpg.net. Well, rpg.net of five years ago. I'm not much of a regular there anymore.

 

[Rechan]

Am I to take it that you think Exalted is a game full of flawed rules? Because that's a relatively straightforward assessment that I'll think you'll get a lot of disagreement about.

As someone who played Exalted 1e for a good 2 year stretch, I'd sure as hell say yes. After a certain point, the numbers and corner cases and such are so large that running combat is an exercise in masochism. It just starts to collapse under its weight.

Which is funny it's come up in this thread; I had the best GM for that game. FanTASTIC GM. I still think of that campaign fondly.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Am I to take it that you think Exalted is a game full of flawed rules? Because that's a relatively straightforward assessment that I'll think you'll get a lot of disagreement about.

Especially if you were to post it at rpg.net. Well, rpg.net of five years ago. I'm not much of a regular there anymore.

Hey, I'm an Exalted fan. If I had players I could trust I'd probably be playing it. Clarity is not one of the virtues I would assign to that game, however. I think its pretty clear on what its intentions are, but not clear at all on how you're supposed to get there. Exalted is a game with an amazing setting and concept whose execution doesn't quite live up to the amazing setting and concept.

 

[Njall]

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.

I can probably cook an egg on my car's roof if the weather is hot enough, and it might also taste good, as long as I clean it beforehand.
I still think that my car is pretty crappy as a frying pan, though. YMMV.
IOW: smart people can do wonderful things with flawed or even broken tools. This doesn't mean the tool itself isn't flawed.

 

[Gimby]

Am I to take it that you think Exalted is a game full of flawed rules? Because that's a relatively straightforward assessment that I'll think you'll get a lot of disagreement about.

Especially if you were to post it at rpg.net. Well, rpg.net of five years ago. I'm not much of a regular there anymore.

I think Exalted is a good source of examples of bad rules - its been a while since I read the book but I recall Two-Target Method for Lunars in 1e was a particularly egregious example of this. IIRC it was a charm that let you make two attacks but was strictly worse than just splitting your dice pool (something every character could do).

2e has (or had, the errata team is pretty active these days) a series of effects copied from 1e that referenced parts of the system that no longer existed and contradictory rules. A good example would be Soulbreaker Orbs - their text says that you cannot dodge them even with Seven Shadow Evasion. Seven Shadow Evasion says it always applies even when an effect says it doesn't. The rule to resolve this contradiction says that the defense wins. So you can dodge a Soulbreaker Orb with SSE even though it says you can't.

Or Obsidian Shards of Infinity in 2e which makes you either utterly unbeatable or is largely pointless depending entirely on Storyteller fiat.

This kind of thing doesn't make Exalted a bad game, just a mechanically weak one. The books go to some length on what kind of game it is meant to produce, but following a strict reading of the rules leaves a bunch of holes. A good ST can certainly get a good (or even truely excellent) game out of it but a poor one will have a lot of trouble. Thats really my metric for whether a game is well designed - can a new or weak DM follow the instructions in the book and get a satisfactory session out of it?

The transparency thing is important too - a tool can be perfectly well designed but simply the wrong tool for the job. Trying to get a high-flying mecha game out of WHFRP2e is going to be an exercise in futility.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, you're changing the equation here. Sure, a semi-truck isn't broken because it requires a different skill set. However, we can still judge semi-trucks by those who possess the necessary skill sets. One semi may be better than another for a specific driver.

So, even in games which appeal to a specific group, you can still have flawed mechanics if a large portion of that specific group has issues with it.

Which brings me to my disagreement with BryonD:

Originally Posted by BryonD
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.

The presumption here though is there is some objective value of "good tool" when it comes to RPG's. For a hammer? Sure, no problem. You can have cheap, crappy hammers and great ones. But something as complex as a gaming system? Fergettaboutit. As was mentioned earlier, one person's good is another's broken.

Trying to claim any sort of objective value of "goodness" in gaming systems is how fights start.