D&D General Define Problem

[Tony Vargas]

I'd say less than 1% of the D&D community is whining because their character isn't the OP.

lol
OP = Original Post(er); OP = OverPowered

OK, seriously, though, there's a lot of complaints about classes (or other more granular build components), being under- or over-powered. Some of those might have their origin in disappointment with a specific character, as might the inevitable assertions to the contrary have some foundation in glee over the reverse. Neither's terribly desirable, which is why balance /is/ desirable.

I’m not understanding what element of the game I’m being asked about whether it is a problem or not.

Any game element that has been called out as a problem: one weapon doing 1/2 hp lower DPR than the next, one class being better than another, at the other's core competency, a dice mechanic being non-functional, whatever.

 

[Ashrym]

I made an awesome self portrait for this.

Sometimes the problem is me. It's just how I look at things. Sometimes something I think is in issue really isn't and sometimes something I don't think is an issue turns out to be bigger than I first thought.

So I decided maybe I am the definition of a problem.

 

[neogod22]

Hmmmm… Can something be a problem in general without being a problem for you specifically?

I don't play Rangers, but after reading the Ranger in the PHB, I can understand why no one likes them. Is that a problem specific to me? No. They did fix it in UA, but never released it for official play. So my suggestion for anyone who wants to play a Ranger, get XGE and play one of those subclasses. Monster Slayer is a beast at higher levels.

 

[neogod22]

You have the strangest view about why people critique things EVER. I'd say less than 1% of the D&D community is whining because their character isn't the OP.

I play and DM, so when people have their "ideas to fix the game," I'm usually looking at how their ideas will work from the perspective of a DM and not the player. Most of the time, including your post a while ago, the "fix" will probably break the game. Most people who are only players can't see things from that perspective.

 

[FrogReaver]

I play and DM, so when people have their "ideas to fix the game," I'm usually looking at how their ideas will work from the perspective of a DM and not the player. Most of the time, including your post a while ago, the "fix" will probably break the game. Most people who are only players can't see things from that perspective.

It's amusing that you act like you are the only one who DM's here. I'd say the majority of active posters here DM at least part of the time - including myself.

 

[StormbringerAUS]

I think the wording of 'It is a problem if' is too strong for at least some of these, they are 'may be a problem'. I have come across some I have found an issue but general these can be solved in game without too many issues.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't know what's so confusing about it. sorry.

Define "unfun".

What one person or group considers fun can differ wildly from what a different person or group considers fun.

This is why we have houserules: so people can tweak the game for their own preferences. The problem occurs when people come onto the forums and start telling people that their issues are universal issues, and their solutions are universal solutions.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If it's unfun and if it makes more work for the DM.

 

[jasper]

It is problem that my players nor anyone reading this message are paying me! $100 an hour or $10 a post. Daddy needs some new minis and wife wants a new truck!

 

[Celebrim]

I ended up clicking all the choices.

Something doesn't have to be a big problem to be a problem. I'm a perfectionist by inclination, so even little problems can be irritating enough to me to want to fix them. It's also why unless I discipline my writing to serve a particular purpose, that it becomes grossly over reliant on adverbs. I want to put in those quantifiers of relative degree, even at the risk of reducing the strength of my writing, because there is some exacting nuance I'm trying to convey.

If someone says, "This has a problem.", I tend to understand it as, "I have a problem with this." And most of the time I consider that perfectly valid. Even if the thing has never struck me as being a problem, being a perfectionist I can usually see the problem and sympathize with the person finding that thing problematic. Where we tend to not see eye to eye is not over the existence of the problem, but over the existence of a solution. Because, again being a perfectionist, the solution will tend to strike me as having it's own problems, and if those problems seem like they are likely to be at least as large as the problem they are trying to solve, I'll tend to not support the proposed solution.

Or in other words, finding problems is easy: finding solutions is hard.

But sometimes, particularly if it is a matter of game rules, a solution is available. If something is too good, you can make it slightly weaker. If something can be abused, you can find some sort of limiting factor that reduces its ability to be abused. If something isn't quite good enough, you can bolster it a little. If something isn't written clearly, you can rewrite it so that it's clearer what is intended - even if you realize that your tweak of clarity might result in a slightly different intention than what the original writer wrote or might not be as clear to the original writer as what they wrote for their own purposes.

Would that all problems were as easily resolved as game rules.

Sometimes though, a problem in a game is intractable, because the alternative is always creating another problem. Complexity is one example of this. No one likes that a system is slow to play or requires complex understanding. But it turns out that there is irreducible complexity in the sense that for a given goal of play, there is a system which is the minimum complexity to achieve that goal and anything less complex would fail. There is a spectrum from abstract to cinematic and as you move along that spectrum toward finer granularity in propositions and more concretely suggested outcomes of a resolution process, you pick up complexity inherently. No amount of ad hoc invented flavor text can reproduce the experience of less abstraction and more complexity, and if you think it can then it's likely because you have an undocumented process that tends to, by the nature of being undocumented, seem simple but is actual very complex. (And in that case, you also have a spectrum between system transparency and GM fiat with inherent tradeoffs.)

 

[Nagol]

It's a problem if it makes the game unfun
This one is always a problem as the purpose of playing the game is having fun. That said, it depends on how one defines "unfun". Impediments and setbacks may not be directly fun, but assessing risk and making the gamble (and paying the price when the gambit fails) is fun.

It's a problem if it makes the game unplayable
Much like the first, it's hard to play and have fun if the game is unworkable. GMs can apply apply enough force to make things happen "appropriately" despite the rules, but I find that is a big problem.

It's a problem if it makes the game severly unbalanced
This becomes a problem if either the player all notice and take advantage of the imbalance -- which tends to create non-genre appropriate groups -- or if only a few players notice and then dominate play. A GM can try to rebalance on the fly through a variety of techniques, but it is a problem for me.

It's a problem if it makes the game moderately unbalanced
As above, but it is a lesser problem that is more easily balanced by applying filters to the game such as encounter construction, antagonist creation, and deliberately sharing spotlight.

It's a problem if it makes the game slightly unbalanced
Barely a problem as no system with a lot of options is perfectly balanced.

It's a problem if it makes the game less fun, less balanced or less playable than an alternative
This is less a probalem than an opportuity for improvement -- if one provides enough critical forethought to verify the alternative is actually preferable including any ripple effects across the rest of the game engine.

It's a problem if it's chosen to often because of it's power
It's a problem if it's chsoen to often
It doesn't matter why something is chosen; power is just a very common reason to choose a game ability. If it is chosen enough to be considered a non-choice, it can be a problem in that it narrows design space.

It's a problem if it creates too much work for the DM
This can be very much a problem. Persuading others to DM is hard enough. Extra work is one of the turn offs. Increasing that workload will act as further disincentive. Additionally, if the extra work is at the table, the DM has a greater chance to screw up in the moment which makes everyone feel bad.

It's a problem if I can't "make sense" of some mechanic within the fiction
I find this one to be some small problem for me. If I can't make sense of the mechanic either through a genre lens or by positioning inside the game universe then I always wonder why it exists and if it should be replaced.

It's a problem if it's too complex
Complexity is only a problem if it is unneeded and unwanted. If the mechanic is central to a thesis and deserves complexity, it is a feature not a bug. If the mechanic is tertiary and is expected to be glossed over during play, complexity is a problem.

It's a problem if it's too simple
The opposite of complexity, really. There are appropriate times for simplicity and times where a weightier alternative is more appropriate.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

"It's a problem if it makes the game less fun, less balanced, or less playable or less balanced than an alternative"

Is this referring to its effect on one's D&D experience compared to playing an alternative game? Or is this answer referring to a comparison of specific game components like subclasses or feats? Because the answer would be no or maybe respectively.

With regards to specific game components, I'd need to define how much less playable, balanced, or fun it was than an alternative (kind of like the previous questions--though I realize having various degrees of each question in a survey is impractical).

For me, it is a problem if the component either severely or moderately does so. If it only mildly does so, not so much. Of course, definitions of severity will vary, and to some degree can vary based on usage. If I never see certain features in play (and they don't interest me enough to deeply examine them), then I probably won't notice unless they are severely messed-up, even though if I looked at it more deeply I might notice it is moderately messed-up and have a problem with it. When I'm quite likely to notice it is if I, as the guy who reads and re-reads the books, and likes playing just about everything, looks at something and thinks, "That idea is cool, but I couldn't use the mechanics as written without feeling like I'm getting cheated."

As an aside, one thing I don't find helpful at all is "You can always change it for your home game!" Even though I do play home games, and can change it, part of the point of discussion is to help others with similar definitions of problems get some advanced warning before they run into them. There is also the hope that if enough people recognize something as a problem, the idea gets out to the wider D&D community and the designers sometimes actually try to address it. (Not that I think they necessarily do the best job...but they try darn it!)

 

[Shiroiken]

Hmmmm… Can something be a problem in general without being a problem for you specifically?

I've seen a LOT of people online complain about Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter because of the -5/+10 benefit, but I've never seen it as an issue in play.* I've also seldom ever seen a 5MWD issue in play either. Both of these are seen as a problem in general, but I've never seen them actually come up, so I'd say that's a definite "yes."

Of course, I also think that too many posters figure out optimal/perfect examples to complain about, rather than actually seeing them in play first. The only thing I've had to outright ban was Healing Spirit from XGtE, and that was after a campaign where I was the druid PC using it (I wasn't even trying to abuse it, but it was still WAY too good).


*My view about feats (if anyone actually cares) is that about 75% the feats in the PHB are worse than +2 to your primary ability score, and at least half of them are worse than +2 to your secondary ability score, which makes the ones that are worth taking "OP" in everyone's mind.

 

[Lanefan]

It's a problem when the poll doesn't list all the options and I have to vote "Other".

So, "Other" problem types I'd have voted for had they been listed:

-+- It's a problem if it breaks immersion beyond repair
-+- It's a problem if it makes the game fiction too unbelievable and-or inconsistent with itself
-+- It's a problem if it's inconsistent with, or opposite to, another rule or system within the same game
-+- It's a problem if it's never chosen or used at all
-+- It's a problem if it makes the game less flexible in handling different styles of play

(though the third one might come under "makes the game unplayable", I suppose)

 

[CydKnight]

Defining problems is always going to be largely subjective. Even when someone openly states there is no bias there most certainly always will be regardless. We base everything we evaluate on past experiences and always will because that is the only mechanism we have to do so.

Often what is considered a "problem" for one may be a boon for another. 'Some felt there weren't enough sub-classes but some felt there were too many. '

Sometimes the "problem" was a benefit in the past or later will be in the future base on situational changes. 'The sub-classes were fine but now that feats are allowed, they are over-powered.'

What I am trying to get at is that there are likely as many answers as to what constitutes a "problem" as there are individuals. Everyone's opinions are slightly different even if only minutely. Some of the categories of "problems" in the poll lead me to question why some would choose to play at all. There. Problem solved.

It may sound crass but I really don't find problems with an RPG I am playing and it's likely because I don't look for any. I simply take the rules and mechanics as they are and do my best with them. However, it must look fun and interesting enough for me to invest the time to try it in the first place. I'm not going to spend time on it otherwise and likely won't even give it much thought at all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's a problem when the poll doesn't list all the options and I have to vote "Other".

So, "Other" problem types I'd have voted for had they been listed:
-+- It's a problem if it breaks immersion beyond repair
-+- It's a problem if it makes the game fiction too unbelievable and-or inconsistent with itself

These are both variations on "It's a problem if I can't "make sense" of some mechanic within the fiction"

It's a problem if it's inconsistent with, or opposite to, another rule or system within the same game
(though the third one might come under "makes the game unplayable", I suppose)

Yes, the game, at the point resolution turns on the conflicting rules, ceases to function. You continue by changing it.

It's a problem if it's never chosen or used at all

A symptom of "makes the game severly unbalanced" and the corollary of "chosen to often (because of it's power)"

-+- It's a problem if it makes the game less flexible in handling different styles of play

Prettymuch begging the question, any of the problems listed might get in the way of certain playstyles - as might many legitimate solutions, in the case of pathological playstyles.
But, "makes the game unfun" is probably the closest fit, as it's the most subjective.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I could see all of those being problems.

But just because something is a problem doesn't mean it needs to be addressed. Sometimes addressing a small problem may result in the creation of a greater problem and you're worse off than before. Sometimes fixing a problem isn't worth the potential cost of fixing the problem.

Even if you decide it's worth it to tackle a problem you then get to decide if it's something you tackle with an engineering control (change the system) or a process control (change something outside the system).

So I voted only the top option. If the game is good enough to be fun enough that my table still finds it all worth out time then the important problems have been taken care of.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I sometimes like to compare RPGs to other, somewhat similar forms of recreation to tease out psychology of play.

One thing that occurred to me is that often players of RPGs don't consider things problematic that they quite likely would if it were in a video game, even an RPG video game.

Why not? My gut says that it's probably a fundamental difference in how people interpret the freedom to change and adapt the rules in an RPG.

From my perspective, the freedom to change and adapt is something that should be added on top of a system that is already as close to perfect as possible. A good RPG should as close to perfectly presented an intended play experience (or variety of play experiences) as possible with no house rules at all. You should only need to adjust it if you want a slightly different experience that requires a slightly different rule set. And if the experience you want is more than slightly different, you ideally should have a better RPG option to present it (often times you don't, unfortunately).

I get the impression that there are other people who see the imperfection within an RPG that often necessitates customization to smooth out rough spots to be a feature.

I'm not sure if there is a different purchasing intent--ie, desiring purchasing an RPG to provide a similar experience to purchasing some sort of do-it-yourself kit. And maybe as an extension of that, would be differences in the level of do-it-yourself-ing that people are comfortable with.

For instance, I am (and have before) working on my own system to give me particular experiences I can't get with another system. When I pay for an RPG, I hate having to houserule it. I hate it. And yet I've basically never met an RPG I can play for more than a little while without houseruling because of what I perceive as actual problems in the system. The vast majority I come up with at least a tentative houserule or two before I finish reading the book, because there is usually something that stands out as glaringly not fitting right with the rest of the system.(1)

I don't get the impression most people buy a computer game and are happy with the fact that you need to download an unofficial patch (or make one yourself) to fix bugs in it. And we straight up wouldn't tolerate it if we bought DVDs and they wouldn't play right on our regulation players without going through hoops to make it work.

Now, I know some of it relates to people that got started a few years before me when you almost couldn't buy an RPG product that wasn't overtly and unavoidably riddled with inconsistencies that made it literally unplayable "by the book". If one's foundational experiences were with being required to "fix" a system in order to play, it might be understandable that us kids today wanting a system that works "out of the box" is just entitled nonsense (j/k). Now, maybe that's the only demographic that feels that, in which case it makes sense. I just wonder, if that's not the case, in the case of more recent players, why there is so much more of a tolerance for RPGs that don't work or are inconsistent without customization, than for other forms of entertainment.


(1) Example: In recently reading through Savage Rifts (which looks completely awesome) there was a description of the length of a dragon from nose to tip of tail that immediately stood out to me as not making sense in connection with its weight, it's description, and the mechanical size category it was assigned to. Simply changing it to base of tail fixed it. I went and posted about it, with some helpful diagrams I put together that dramatically illustrated the issue, and it appears that no one else had even noticed the discrepancy (nor, more disturbingly, seemed to care), which had been there since the previous edition a few years ago! Gift? Curse? Obsession? (Well, it was a dragon, and I'm pretty dragon obsessed.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I get the impression that there are other people who see the imperfection within an RPG that often necessitates customization to smooth out rough spots to be a feature.

"Bad rule make games good!" Could've been the motto of WWGS (one of their guys is reputed to have said something like that). Ironically, it /also/ could be the motto of D&D. ...ironic because Roll v Role... 90s? UseNet... ? ...it's ironic if you're old enough to remember the September that Never Ended.

I'm not sure if there is a different purchasing intent--ie, desiring purchasing an RPG to provide a similar experience to purchasing some sort of do-it-yourself kit.

We'd all be playing Hero/Fuzion, GURPS or FUDGE/FATE, if that were the case.

Now, I know some of it relates to people that got started a few years before me when you almost couldn't buy an RPG product that wasn't overtly and unavoidably riddled with inconsistencies that made it literally unplayable "by the book"

So sometime in the last 45 years? OK, no, I get it. Really, even before the fad catapulted D&D to grudging mainstream name recognition c1983, some basically functional TTRPGs had rolled out.

If one's foundational experiences were with being required to "fix" a system in order to play, it might be understandable that us kids today wanting a system that works "out of the box" is just entitled nonsense (j/k).

Prettymuch.

Now, maybe that's the only demographic that feels that, in which case it makes sense. I just wonder, if that's not the case, in the case of more recent players, why there is so much more of a tolerance for RPGs that don't work or are inconsistent without customization, than for other forms of entertainment.

The thing about a hobby that stayed as small and insular as ours did until just recently is that the first cohort to dig in retains outsized influence, and thoroughly indoctrinates the new recruits into their inner mysteries.

Now, you might think that now that D&D has had it's come-back and followed the general TT renaissance into the mainstream that such will no longer be the case. But you reckon without the darksome power of our vast conspiracy! (OK, that's overselling it.) But thing is, when 5e was being designed, it still had to appeal to our cultniche market, at least be acceptable to it, so it /is/ exactly what you don't want: a classic car of an RPG that you must Fix Or Repair Daily. ;P

And if you really, really don't like that, well, you won't stick with the hobby, will you?
And the hobby will just stay this way.
::Ursula voice::
Forever….
::Villain Laugh::

 

[Sword of Spirit]

And if you really, really don't like that, well, you won't stick with the hobby, will you?
And the hobby will just stay this way.
::Ursula voice::
Forever….
::Villain Laugh::

I'm actually pretty old-school myself, but my formative experiences were the Gold Box games, the Mentzer Red Box, and the first printing 2e core. The computer game obviously had to run on my C64, despite the fact that a majority of purchasable equipment and learnable spells were obviously and strangely useless. You had to dig into 2e before you realized it didn't work...and BECMI is still strangely solid as far as D&D goes (even though I'd have a tough time setting the expectations needed to play it nowadays, as more than a one-off). So I missed the more obviously not-playable "by the book" OD&D and (non-computerized) AD&D.

I'm glad they did listen to the established fanbase in the design, but that doesn't totally preclude attempting to make a game not broken. If I had more* time I could probably make a 6e that didn't have a lot of what I see as problems in D&D. But I have better uses for that time, so I just update my house rules every so often and try to keep them as minimal as I can manage to stomach.

* As in a ridiculously extensive amount of dedicated time that anyone should be paid top dollar for.