TTRPGs: broken mechanics vs. abusive players

[ThorinTeague]

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.

And 5e players (or the ones I've been DM'ing for) aren't super keen on this. In fact more than a couple house rules and I probably wouldn't get any players. Let alone rewriting the entire spell list. But that's pretty much what my world calls for.

 

[James Gasik]

When it comes to broken mechanics/abusive players, there are sometimes differences in perspective. Players will probably try to overstate what they can do with a power or spell and sometimes the remedy is just to look at things and rule it NOT work in an overpowered manner while still trying to be fair. Take the repel wood example. Looking at the spell and its description, there's nothing to indicate that it has anywhere near the power to lift a ship. It can't even move a firmly barred door. If I pointed it at my kitchen cabinets, also firmly attached, it could certainly break off the wooden door handles but it isn't clear it can do much more than that. It can push away people holding wooden object like shields. But move a multi-ton ship, much less lift it out of the water? Seems out of proportion to the rest of the description by significant magnitude.

That's a possible ruling, but when I read the spell Pathfinder Repel Wood, all it had to say was: "Wooden objects larger than 3 inches in diameter that are fixed firmly are not affected, but loose objects are...Objects affected by the spell are repelled at the rate of 40 feet per round." Even the notes for the spell on d20pfsrd only talk about what happens if you're on the deck of the ship. It never says anything about using it when you're not on the ship, though it does state: "A ship under the control of a pilot can make a Will save to negate the effects of this spell", which I take as an indication that Repel Wood can affect a ship.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm on team The Players Deserved It. However, any spell the players can use (and "break"), the NPCs can use too. So if a PC wants to break your game, just ask "are you cool with NPCs doing this too?"


I mean, as long as there's not a bris involved...


I hope this doesn't mean that you refuse to consider PC abilities. If it means one PC shouldn't dominate, well, there are two sides to that coin. The flip side is that dominating PCs get a reputation, and opponents act accordingly.

Oh no, I do, but after 30+ decades of doing so, it gets a bit tiring when yet another problematic ability comes along. I'm usually a strong advocate for players, and I don't particularly care to take their toys away from them. It's just irritating to me when a proud nail shows up. I don't want to design around it, and I'd much rather let the player have their cool thing, but a lot of times it gets to the point of "either I create an encounter specifically to prevent this trick or showcase a player weakness or I might as well have a montage".

As for the "turn the spell around on the players", sometimes you can't. Like Magic Circle isn't going to affect the average party, and as I noted upthread already, some groups are simply incapable of dealing with some spells. I don't particularly like using spellcasting enemies anyways, because it almost always leads to a someone getting neutralized and having to sit on their hands for whatever reason...or the players gang up on the caster super fast and they don't do much of anything, lol.

 

[James Gasik]

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.


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.

Ok, let me try again to explain what happened. Now Magic Circle says "You create a 10-foot-radius, 20-foot-tall cylinder of magical energy centered on a point on the ground that you can see within range. Glowing runes appear wherever the intersects with the floor or other surface. The relevant bullet point is: "The creature can't willingly enter the cylinder by nonmagical means. If the creature tries to use teleportation or interplanar travel to do so, it must first succeed on a Charisma saving throw."

Ok now imagine this. You have a 30' x 30' room, a dungeon crawl classic.

_ _ ___
I I
I D (MC)
I I

So the Magic Circle is outside the door. A player opens the door and backs up. The undead in question has 5' reach, thus cannot attack that player with a melee attack. The party is free to use ranged attacks since the creature cannot exit the room.

This is not exactly what the room looked like, but I'm not an artist and I don't have a photo of the map handy. Suffice it to say, the creature had no good defenses against this strategy. The DM noted that, and was well within his rights to alter the encounter, but he didn't.

And maybe this is such a niche situation that it's not a problem, but in the moment, I felt like we were exploiting enemy AI in a video game.

 

[ThorinTeague]

Oh no, I do, but after 30+ decades

HE'S A VAMPIRE! I KNEW IT!

 

[Hussar]

I'm on team The Players Deserved It. However, any spell the players can use (and "break"), the NPCs can use too. So if a PC wants to break your game, just ask "are you cool with NPCs doing this too?"


I mean, as long as there's not a bris involved...


I hope this doesn't mean that you refuse to consider PC abilities. If it means one PC shouldn't dominate, well, there are two sides to that coin. The flip side is that dominating PCs get a reputation, and opponents act accordingly.

My problem with this is that it sets up an arms race the players cannot possibly win. I’m the dm. I have infinite resources. I can justify anything.

So the dungeon has a different, permanent, Forbiddence in every room and corridor. Now you cannot teleport, use ant summoning or access any bags of holding or the like until you dispel the effect, and this needs to be dispelled in every location. Oh and if any of your party happens to be of a certain type, they are likely going to die or be forced to retreat.

Then of course we’ve glyphed and arcane locked every door.

So on and so forth.

It’s just not fun.

 

[James Gasik]

HE'S A VAMPIRE! I KNEW IT!

No no, just a time traveler.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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...

Hate to tell you man, but when most conventional RPGs have as much focus on combat as they do (and they do), not expecting that to be a big deal for people is not particularly convincing. If more games actually had a well developed non-combat set of abilities, you'd see it there too (and in the few cases I know of, do).

 

[MGibster]

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 was going to counter with the idea that the dead might not know for sure who killed them. But from a player's point of view, blocking the use of their abilities for contrived reasons can be pretty frustrating.

 

[James Gasik]

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...

Oh there's stuff that breaks other pillars as well. Create Food and Water, Goodberry, Leomund's Stupidly Secure Portable Battle Fort; the list goes on. Technically the Ranger class gets ribbon abilities that trivialize a lot of exploration. Fly, teleport, mount; if you want traversing terrain and long distances to be a thing, the best way is to just overpopulate your world with bandits, turning it into a combat solution.

As for Social play...let's be serious for a moment. This is social play in a nutshell. Maybe (if allowed) roll a Perception/Investigation/Insight to get some clue. Then hit a reasonable DC on a Persuasion/Intimidation/Deception check. The Social pillar is so underdeveloped it can be busted by Expertise. Sure, there are problematic spells, but by and large, these would be problematic for the other tiers of play as well. The Social pillar as presented in the rulebooks is pitiful, full of pass/fail checks and DC's that some DM's think are too low to really present a challenge. There aren't social "special maneuvers", very few social abilities that aren't ad hoc or just "have advantage" or "double your proficiency bonus", and the amount of work required to immunize every lord and monarch in a campaign from mind control or just being kidnapped and replaced with a simulacrum probably strains belief (if not the kingdom's treasury).