TTRPGs: broken mechanics vs. abusive players

[soviet]

If the DM didn't houserule-fix the spell such that your exploit couldn't work again (or better yet, identified and shut said exploit down before it first arose), IMO you'd be well within your rights to keep using that trick forever; and it wouldn't make you a problem player in the least.

Yes, it's a problem with the books, but it's not your-as-player's job to fix said problem. It's the DM's; and because the DM didn't fix it s/he and the campaign are now stuck with it as a known thing.

Wow would this attitude get you kicked out of my game so fast (something I've never yet had to do BTW). 'No I will not adjust my behaviour as politely requested, F you'. Wow.

 

[Jer]

If the DM didn't houserule-fix the spell such that your exploit couldn't work again (or better yet, identified and shut said exploit down before it first arose), IMO you'd be well within your rights to keep using that trick forever; and it wouldn't make you a problem player in the least.

If one of my players did that after I'd asked them politely in the manner that TwoSix's DM did, that player would fall off my text chain for reminding folks about our games.

I literally can't imagine an adult player that I'm willing to play with who would come back with a "house rule it or I'll keep doing it" challenge after me saying "hey if you decide to make that broken combo a regular thing it's basically going to kill our game, so how about we call this a cool one-off event". Even one of the 12 year olds would be unlikely to give me attitude like that let alone the adults.

Wow. Just... wow.

 

[Lanefan]

For my play ethos, a campaign is a collaboration between the players and the DM. Forcing rule changes just because I could goes against my beliefs of what's expected of me as a player.

Well, either you force a rule change or you've got an exploit you can use freely. My point is the DM should have seen this coming and sorted it before it came up in play.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think that preventing the abuses of power gamers needs to be a frontline concept for RPG design (as annoying as those people can be). Munchkins gonna munchkin.

 

[Lanefan]

If one of my players did that after I'd asked them politely in the manner that TwoSix's DM did, that player would fall off my text chain for reminding folks about our games.

I literally can't imagine an adult player that I'm willing to play with who would come back with a "house rule it or I'll keep doing it" challenge after me saying "hey if you decide to make that broken combo a regular thing it's basically going to kill our game, so how about we call this a cool one-off event". Even one of the 12 year olds would be unlikely to give me attitude like that let alone the adults.

If an exploit is going to kill the game then it's on you-as-DM to shut it down, not me-as-player. Now, ideally I-as-player might want to warn the DM that an exploit has been found before it comes up in play, such that it can be evaluated and by precedent-setting ruling either allowed (for everyone) or corrected (for everyone); but that doesn't seem to have happened in this case and so the DM was kinda stuck.

That said, and whether done politely or not, asking me-as-player to fix a DM-side rules problem is bad form, pure and simple. Worse, asking me-as-player to not use the exploit doesn't shut it down for anyone else who might want to use it - including the DM-as-NPCs. Just make a ruling that applies to the whole campaign, and move on.

 

[James Gasik]

Here's an example. In 3.5, Control Winds was a 5th level druid spell that let you raise the level of "wind" by one factor for every 3 caster levels, and had a massive range (in the miles). Combine that with a pearl of power that boosts your divine caster level by 4, and you could make a calm breeze into a hurricane by 11th level.

So I did that! And I flattened a town that an enemy of the party was hiding in to flush him out. After the session, the DM asked me if I could not do that trick anymore because he just didn't have a logical way to counter it, and it would make the game less fun to try. So I said "Of course, no problem", and didn't do that anymore.

Was I being a problem player? I don't think so. It was a bog standard PHB spell, a pretty common magic item, and once you saw how the spell worked, an obvious tactic to use. Using something built into the core books with a minimum of outside synergies and yet was able to cause campaign shaking problems, to me, points to a problem with the books. If I had continued to use that combination because it's "legal", despite being aware of the problems it caused in the campaign, then I would become a problem player.

I'm reminded of something similar I did in a Skulls & Shackles game with my Druid. We were fighting a pirate vessel, and I decided to assume my water elemental form, swim under the enemy ship, and cast repel wood. The GM was very surprised that there were no provisions about this anywhere in the campaign guide, which makes quite a few notations about how spells work in ship combat, but saw no reason why the spell wouldn't work, punting the ship into the air, and dropping it back down into the water, with catastrophic results.

As one might imagine, I was asked to kindly refrain from repeating that stunt. I was saddened, since I'd been waiting to do that for some time, but conceded the point.

When it comes to player ingenuity with regards to using the tools in universe to great effect, I'm of the opinion that it's unlikely that the players were the first to think of it, and countermeasures probably exist. Also, in this specific example, I'm well aware that the existence of wooden ships as we know them in oceans full of deadly sea monsters seems a bit suspect (as they would have no real way to prevent attacks from below). Sometimes you just have to accept the fiction to play the game.

 

[MichaelSomething]

A munchkin makes a broken character. A power gamer makes a broken party.

I don't think that preventing the abuses of power gamers needs to be a frontline concept for RPG design (as annoying as those people can be). Munchkins gonna munchkin.

 

[Fenris-77]

A munchkin makes a broken character. A power gamer makes a broken party.

Sure, but those two terms overlap quite a bit. Not always, but often.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I get fairly annoyed when I see someone call xyz game or aspect of that game “broken,” especially when talking about major releases that have been tested to the nth degree. It does however pique my curiosity about what is a genuinely broken mechanic vs. absurd and unlikely circumstances fomented by bad faith/abusive game play.

Just an example for the purpose of this discussion: What I’ve seen D&D shorts post to his YouTube channel comes to mind (yep, he actually talks about the game). I haven’t seen all of his videos but the ones I have watched all hash out some astronomically improbable combinations of variables, cherry picked one out of context feature at a time throughout multiple disparate supplements, coupled with some extraordinarily bad faith interpretations of the D&D 5th Edition rules. He’s not the only player who does this by any stretch of the imagination, but his abuses are definitely some of the most outrageous I’ve ever seen.

However, for another example on the other side of that coin, there were a couple books in late pf1e that, when used as intended, pretty much broke the game. So I am just ruminating on where the actual line is. Of course, it’s probably not easily defined, if it can be defined at all. But it deserves some thought I believe. Then there’s the glorious, beautiful mess that is the Palladium megaverse. I don’t know that I want to call anything in that system “broken” per se, but it definitely is cookoo.

Please share your thoughts on where genuinely broken game mechanics end and player abuse begins.

Speaking of Palladium I'd say the concept of MDC is Rifts is broken. Not because it exists, but because one starting character may have them and another may not.

For those unfamiliar with Rifts/MDC...it was basically a higher value version of HP. I believe it was a 1-100 or possibly 1-1000 ratio. So you might have a starting party where one character had 18HP and another 1200.

Perhaps broken isn't correct here depending on your definition, but I'd say it was.

 

[Fenris-77]

Grrrr ... MDC. What a schmozzle.