TTRPGs: broken mechanics vs. abusive players

[ThorinTeague]

X is broken how? X BREAKS COMBAT
Mandatory character choices for what? COMBAT
Optimized for what? FOR COMBAT
Min maxed in what way? FOR COMBAT
Game balance for what? COMBAT
Parties are imbalanced! In what context? COMBAT

I see a pattern developing...

 

[ThorinTeague]

Agreed again, to a point. If it has an in-module reason to stay put e.g. it's defending something in that room or there's a border it can't cross, then fine. Absent such things, however, this is IMO an authorial flaw in that why would it stay put when it can see all those nice tasty adventurers standing just outside its door?

What we're also not told is how intelligent this creature was. If it had any sort of intelligence, once the PCs opened up with their ranged attacks wouldn't it have hidden against the wall next to the door such that someone would have to step into the room to target it and thus come within its reach?

Right, I mean, maybe it was an intelligent undead with no clear reason to stay in the room other than the adventure text said so.

My train of thought is that the creature should do what would make sense for it to do given its capabilities and-or intelligence; and if that comes across as adversarial then I've no sympathy.

It was a scroll, as per the OP, meaning the party burned a resource to pull this off. I've no problem with the end result, but I do have issues with a) how this encounter was written and b) how the monster was run, unless it was mindless.

Yeah, definitely true. Just giving the designers the benefit of the doubt and assuming they knew what they were doing when they said this guy stays put. But of course, in game the DM must apply their judgment....

But the magic circle thing... I'm just hearing "so we cast magic circle at the door, and it worked," and this is a big problem why? Maybe if anything it could be a bit too low of a level (maybe 4 would be better) but I mean the spell gives disadv and protection vs. charm/fear/possession... come on, man. It's not invincibility. It's fine. Sometimes I'm astounded at how very differently different people can look at the same game.

 

[CleverNickName]

There is no such thing as a "player-proof" rule. If someone at the table is determined to exploit something, they will go to great lengths to do so. It will become the entire reason for rolling up their character, it'll become the only thing they can think about. Certain rare players can become so committed to a rules exploit that they would rather nobody else at the table have any fun at all, than be denied...no amount of rules mastery or prep work on the part of the DM will stop them.

"After all," they seem to believe, "it's not my fault I scoured the Internet for days until I found a loophole in the rules. Sure, I found a way to compound it into something even worse, and then I implemented it as quickly as possible, and I've continued to use it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again...but what choice did I have? Clearly it's a rules problem! The DM should have caught it, but didn't, and now it's too late so no retcons! Everyone else at the table is just going to have to deal with me and my overpowered absurdity."

I'm exaggerating, of course, but everyone has met That Player before: the one who would rather grind the game to a halt with arguments and back-talk, than admit their character or playstyle is causing a problem. Fortunately they're rare, and once your table has been visited by one, the experience is memorable enough to deter the other players from doing likewise.

 

[CleverNickName]

X is broken how? X BREAKS COMBAT
Mandatory character choices for what? COMBAT
Optimized for what? FOR COMBAT
Min maxed in what way? FOR COMBAT
Game balance for what? COMBAT
Parties are imbalanced! In what context? COMBAT

I see a pattern developing...

Correlation is not causation: there are more rules for combat than anything else in the game. More rules means more opportunities for rules exploits.

But I'll be the first to say that combat isn't the only place I've seen rules get exploited into oblivion. I've had it up to here with darkvision shenanigans and guidance spam...

 

[JiffyPopTart]

That's only a problem for you because you're fixated on combat, and ignoring or at least deemphasizing all other aspects of the game. The Palladium xp advancement system specifically deemphasizes combat--the game doesn't give much reward for blowing things up and killing vs. making good decisions and role playing.

I'm also willing to assume that said party member with the 1d6sdc pistol has a laundry list of abilities and skills that the 1d6mdc pistol guy lacks.

Of course this discussion is fixated on combat, HP/SDC/MDC are combat related statistics.

Would you run a 5e game where fighters got a weapon that did 6d100 damage at 1st level?

 

[ThorinTeague]

Of course this discussion is fixated on combat, HP/SDC/MDC are combat related statistics.

Would you run a 5e game where fighters got a weapon that did 6d100 damage at 1st level?

There is no such thing in RAW, as opposed to the Rifts examples, which do exist in RAW (because Palladium considers the balance to lie elsewhere--there is more in-game reward for combat in D&D than in Rifts).

 

[Jd Smith1]

X is broken how? X BREAKS COMBAT
Mandatory character choices for what? COMBAT
Optimized for what? FOR COMBAT
Min maxed in what way? FOR COMBAT
Game balance for what? COMBAT
Parties are imbalanced! In what context? COMBAT

I see a pattern developing...

You have a lot of assumptions there.

One reason why I consider D&D broken is because the endless stream of spells eliminate roleplayer and player involvement. Try running a murder investigation with PCs who can speak to dead, for example.

 

[Lanefan]

How about the fact that there is no save? The creatures affected by the spell cannot enter the circle; only if they have some means of teleportation are they allowed a Charisma save to enter it. How about the fact that, instead of being used as a means to let the characters inside be protected from attacks from outside (as they would have disadvantage), it effectively became an unbreakable wall?

I don't have problems with spells that say "this spell makes things difficult for the enemies" or even "very difficult", as long as they have some way to interact with them or save against them. But there are spells that simply say "oh unless you have X ability, this spell works and likely ends the encounter".

I don't mind this if the "works and ends the encounter" bit only happens in an unusual or rare set of circumstances when things line up just right.

Especially since those spells can be used against the party, and I thought it was 5e's design that we don't force players to play certain character classes- so imagine the party of 4-5 Fighter and/or Rogues up against a forecage. Saying there's no reason you can't play the character you want, then introducing a play element that says "but since you didn't play an X, Y, or Z, you lose" would seem unfair, wouldn't it?

If I were in the DM chair, and I have to warp my encounter design around a player ability, that seems ridiculous.

It is ridiculous. Design whatever encounters you like, and the the PCs don't happen to have the ability on hand to deal with something then so be it - maybe they get stuck, or have to abandon the adventure, or come up with a workaround.

For example: the 5-Fighter party is up against a forcecage. If at least one of those Fighters is a Dwarf (or Gnome, in some versions) then digging through the wall/floor/ceiling becomes a viable - if slow - means of getting around said forcecage....provided the players think of it. It's amazing how many don't.

Instead, we have a PHB full of all kinds of colorful spells with no advice, adjudication, or anything. So now the DM has to go over each spell with a fine toothed comb, learn about summoning 8 pixies the hard way, or hope that someone else warns them about it first?

Yep. Personally, I found a good way of doing this was to re-write every spell from scratch (which I did when I put them all online for our 1e-variant system). Yes it's tedious, but the rewriting process allows you to identify and plug loopholes, clarify wording, maybe change which classes can access which spells, maybe re-level some spells that are over- or under-whelming for the level they're at, and add in any rulings or precedents that have already come up.

 

[Lanefan]

One reason why I consider D&D broken is because the endless stream of spells eliminate roleplayer and player involvement. Try running a murder investigation with PCs who can speak to dead, for example.

I've done this. It's reasonably do-able, if one assumes the murderer is aware spells such as Speak With Dead exist and takes precautions against them while committing the crime.

The bigger headaches are spells like Commune, which no precautions can overcome. These blow mysteries of any kind all to hell.

 

[bloodtide]

One reason why I consider D&D broken is because the endless stream of spells eliminate roleplayer and player involvement. Try running a murder investigation with PCs who can speak to dead, for example.

That's not really "broken" though, it's more of a play style. If you as DM, let a spell eliminate roleplayer and player involvement, then that is on you. There are a ton of just mundane ways to handle any spell, like speak with the dead. If the dead just says "it was a woman in a mask" that does not help the players auto solve the murder.

It takes skills and effort to handle such spells, but then it's much the same for anything a DM does. As Hero demi gods, all PCs can do much more then normal folks....and your world has to be ready for that.