TTRPGs: broken mechanics vs. abusive players

[Jd Smith1]

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.

It tough to do that in kitchen sink games like 5e, where the sheer volume of items, abilities, feats, talents, class abilities, racial abilities, and endless lists of spells.

But no matter what the system, a player out to twist the rules for his own advantage without regard for the campaign is not going to last at my table.

 

[Lanefan]

Are we thinking of the same control winds spell, with a range of 40 feet per caster level, and affects a cylinder with a radius of 40 feet per caster level and is 40 feet high?

Looking further into this, according to my handy-dandy 3e PH it seems this entire thread and resulting argument is based on a simple reading error: either the player or the DM (probably both) mistakenly conflated the spells Control Winds (5th level) and Control Weather (7th level) by assigning the range, duration, and AoE of the higher-level spell to the lower.

Control Winds as written is still a bit broken, mind you, but at least it can only destroy a house or two at a time rather than a whole town.

Control Weather's write-up is weird, in that all the examples given assume the spell will be used destructively rather than to calm the weather.

 

[Umbran]

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.

I think there's really three or four categories: Broken Mechanic, Error, Absurd and Unlikely Edge Case, and Abusive Game Play.

 

[Hussar]

My personal definition of broken is any option which is so good that it becomes the default choice above any others.

I often point to the 2e two weapon fighting rules. For a minimal cost you essentially doubled your character’s damage output. There was simply no reason not to do it.

Currently my campaign is hitting high levels and we’re running into a few hiccups. I’ve made it pretty clear to the players that I will add in a few tweaks here and there to spells rather than be forced to completely rewrite adventures to accommodate these effects.

For example I’ve added that the area of a Forbiddence spell needs to be walked out in order to work. Otherwise any adventure with “outsiders” (to use the 3e term) or undead simply get removed from play.

 

[James Gasik]

It is kind of annoying when you have to make those kinds of adjustments though. Like, the authors never saw any possible issues with spells or abilities? "Oh so the wizard can make a few magical ice clones, what's the worst thing that could happen?".

Earlier today at my game, we used a scroll of magic circle to completely trivialize an encounter with a powerful undead by casting it just outside a room we knew the creature was in and then opening the door and lobbing ranged attacks at it.

The DM admitted that he could have had it come out and attack us to disrupt the ritual (even though the adventure says it waits inside to attack the first person who comes within range) or by changing the layout of the room to give it some cover, but he'd thought the encounter as was would kill at least two of us, so didn't want to foil our creative solution and use of resources, but it still got me thinking "this seems like a spell that could be abused".

Sure it costs 100 gp and takes 10 minutes to cast, and maybe that was just the perfect place to use the spell, I dunno. It feels off somehow.

 

[Hussar]

It is kind of annoying when you have to make those kinds of adjustments though. Like, the authors never saw any possible issues with spells or abilities? "Oh so the wizard can make a few magical ice clones, what's the worst thing that could happen?".

Earlier today at my game, we used a scroll of magic circle to completely trivialize an encounter with a powerful undead by casting it just outside a room we knew the creature was in and then opening the door and lobbing ranged attacks at it.

The DM admitted that he could have had it come out and attack us to disrupt the ritual (even though the adventure says it waits inside to attack the first person who comes within range) or by changing the layout of the room to give it some cover, but he'd thought the encounter as was would kill at least two of us, so didn't want to foil our creative solution and use of resources, but it still got me thinking "this seems like a spell that could be abused".

Sure it costs 100 gp and takes 10 minutes to cast, and maybe that was just the perfect place to use the spell, I dunno. It feels off somehow.

Yeah this is the sort of thing I mean. When one spell/action trivializes encounters. It’s just such a let down. And for all the, well dms can do it too- again how fun is that? Hey I trivialize the party and kill them. Yay. Fun.

The issue is trivializing encounters.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah this is the sort of thing I mean. When one spell/action trivializes encounters. It’s just such a let down. And for all the, well dms can do it too- again how fun is that? Hey I trivialize the party and kill them. Yay. Fun.

The issue is trivializing encounters.

Which you know, some spells are designed to do, but they usually have caveats. Sleet Storm can keep enemies at bay for a few turns, as can Web. Hypnotic Pattern wears off if someone takes damage, that sort of thing. But as you get higher level, you got spells that basically say "yeah there's no way to get around this for 95% of enemies, so if the players use a spell slot for this they win."

 

[Hussar]

Which you know, some spells are designed to do, but they usually have caveats. Sleet Storm can keep enemies at bay for a few turns, as can Web. Hypnotic Pattern wears off if someone takes damage, that sort of thing. But as you get higher level, you got spells that basically say "yeah there's no way to get around this for 95% of enemies, so if the players use a spell slot for this they win."

Essentially this. Yes.

 

[MGibster]

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.

The concept of MDC and SDC is one of the most brilliant things about Palladium games. It allows for something like a Sherman tank to be easy to hit, but someone armed with an M-1 Garand is never going to damage it no matter how well they roll. Another plus is that it helps avoid having to roll a handful of dice to better model the amount of damage it takes to destroy a tank versus a human being.

But, yes, MDC was something of a problem in Rifts, where player characters could differ radically in power level. You could start out a party with a young dragon, a Glitterboy (which isn't as fabulous as it sounds but still powerful), a drugged out psycho, and a vagabond.

 

[ThorinTeague]

Earlier today at my game, we used a scroll of magic circle to completely trivialize an encounter with a powerful undead by casting it just outside a room we knew the creature was in and then opening the door and lobbing ranged attacks at it.

I'm hearing "my party used magic as intended and it did precisely what it was supposed to..." What am I missing? Assuming the enemy got the appropriate saving throws and such. Of course if it didn't, that's an entirely different issue than the subject at hand.

The DM admitted that he could have had it come out and attack us to disrupt the ritual (even though the adventure says it waits inside to attack the first person who comes within range) or by changing the layout of the room to give it some cover,

Why? If the adventure text says it doesn't come out, it doesn't come out. The writers of that adventure assumed the players would be standing at the door casting buffs or whatever. I'm just not really following your train of thought, unless you are one of those people that thinks the game should be played competitively, DM versus player. That's what it seems like to me when somebody suggests that the parameters should be changed mid game to be more adversarial towards the players.

Maybe the spell could be level 4 instead of level 3, but other than that I really don't see a problem with the scenario you described.