D&D 5E I broke it! Bring on the next system!

[hbarsquared]

My own resolution for the "system breakers" syndrome is encompassed in a single word: No.

When someone wants spell interpretations that unbalance things, I say no.

Someone wants to pull something out of Psionics or Exalted Deeds that makes them overpowered, I just say no.

They want to make an optimized weapon for their five-prestige-class Mahem Master, I say no. (In fact, I probably said "no" long before they took their fifth prestige class).

When used fairly and consistently, this wondrous word keeps game systems playable for a very long time. Use it early and often!

Although I would agree in situations where the player asks for an unbalancing artifact, or free reign to stack damage after damage because of unnamed modifiers, this is not always the case.

So much of "unbalancing" is a surprise, a stumbling-upon of rules interactions, or a surprising synergy, or a trick, or whatever. It's hard to say "no" if it sounds fair at the time. It's even harder to say "no" after the fact.

I can see how the buildup can lead to, if not a need than a desire for, a new edition.

 

[Greenfield]

The "retroactive no" is always a bad idea.

The "Corrective no", on the other hand, is another matter.

"Okay guys, last session Bob one punched the Big Bad with a surprise combo. I've looked it over and, while it's technically legal, I'm thinking it sets a bad precedent. It unbalances things. So let's all take a step back from the brink. The gods must have been on your side, but don't count on that in the future. I think a more fair way to approach that is...", followed by a more balanced explanation.

As an example, my Bard used the spell G'Elsewhere Chant to remove the draw bridge from a castle. It was "technically legal" because the spell allows the teleportation of objects, but places no explicit limits on how large or massive an "object" can be.

I got away with that once. Afterwards we came to an agreement on what the limits on spells like that should be. If I tried something like that again, it wouldn't work.

So "surprise" combos that are at least arguably legal but end up being over the top are one of the reasons that "house rules" occur: To fill in the fiddly bits in the rules that the designers didn't include.

Now I've played with players who saw that as an adversarial situation, as a personal challenge. In their minds, "no" never set a precedent, and they would keep trying. If the DM ever let it slip through, however, if ever that "no" failed to appear, that set a precedent (or so they would argue).

In my early days as a DM, whenever I encountered such players I found myself caught up in the contest of wills, obsessing with each adventure plan about how to contain my resident loose cannon.

Once I understood the true eloquence of "no", however, I lost that obsession. As soon as such a contest starts to become evident I pull the player aside and simply use my magic word: "No, you can't do that. It doesn't work that way. Stop asking. If you can't stop trying to break the game, then stop coming to it."

It's not that I'm a control freak. It's that those contests end up dominating the game, and robbing everyone (myself and the problem player included) of any fun. And if it isn't fun, why do it?

 

[Warbringer]

so they surprised the gm and the response was, i'm banning that ..ok

 

[MerricB]

The trouble I have with various systems, however, tends to be more fundamental than one or two rogue feats. Often it comes to some of the fundamental underpinnings of the system, which only become really apparent with a lot of play.

For instance, I have a problem with the bonuses given by ability scores and the scaling of those scores in both 3E and 4E (more so in 3E, as scores go higher and are easier to increase). Is that something I can fix by saying "no"? Indeed I can't, because it's a fundamental assumption the game is built around. If I say "ability scores don't give bonuses", everything comes crashing down around me.

(Ability scores still worry me in Next, but they're tempered with the idea of bounded accuracy, so I have hope).

It should be said that it took a lot of play for me to get to this point: 8 years of 3E, which probably averaged 6-8 hours per week of play. At present, I'm DMing four different versions of D&D (AD&D, 4E, Next and PF, with an avg. 8 hrs/week of role-playing) plus regular board-gaming (say another 8 hrs/week). And I'm paying a lot more attention to how systems work...

Cheers!

 

[Umbran]

my group has managed to "break" the system, that is, they've found enough of the holes so that the balance between DM and players, or player and player, has gone enough out of alignment that a new version of D&D is the best way to fix it.

I know that's what happened with 3E (and Pathfinder likewise), and 4E is similar: it doesn't quite do the things I want it to, so bring on 5E!

I'm pretty sure that's actually a non sequitur there, but if not... Well, every system of finite size is going to have holes. If, generally speaking, having holes means a system doesn't do quite what you want, you're pretty much doomed. No system will ever do quite what you want.

The key to enjoying a game, long term, is to step *around* the holes once you've found them. Acknowledge they are there, and agree that you won't keep sticking feet and arms, noses and heads into them, and you get along fine.

I have not run into the problem you have, but then again, for the most part my players don't stress test systems. They aren't powergamers, and they don't beat on them and stretch them so hard that the holes start to tear, and I expect that means we have an easier time avoiding them than many might.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If, generally speaking, having holes means a system doesn't do quite what you want, you're pretty much doomed. No system will ever do quite what you want.

For me, I think it helps immensely if a system isn't dogmatic about its errors. If something causes a problem at my table, it helps a lot more if the system is all "Here's a bunch of other stuff you can do," and less if a system is "Well, guess you're on your own, then, if you don't want to do things the way I want you to do them."

Like Merric's point about how the whole system collapses if you drop ability score bonuses: that's a dogmatic system that doesn't know how to let itself be changed. I want a living game that grows and moves with me, not a canon that I must be measured against.

 

[Greenfield]

so they surprised the gm and the response was, i'm banning that ..ok

Yes and no. You've described the sequence of events, but the way you wrote it implied a cause-and-effect that wasn't there.

First, *I* was the one doing the surprising. (We rotate DM duties in our game, and I was the player who pulled a fast one.)

Second, the reason for the banning wasn't the "surprise" part, it was the potential for abuse. If I'd approached him mid week between games and mentioned my intention to use the spell that way he would have/should have said to find another solution, that that use of the spell was unbalanced and unbalancing.

Technically the Bard could have teleported the entire outer wall of the fortress, any one of the buildings, or even the planet itself if there was a place within 100 yards where it could land without being inside something. (It only teleports horizontally, and guarantees a safe landing.) That's the kind of thing you look at Wish or Miracle for, not a 3rd level Bard spell like G'Elsewhere Chant. Surprise or not, that's just too much power for a 3rd level spell, and some sort of house rule is needed.

 

[Warbringer]

Apologies, I read it as a sequence of events., and in shared mode (DM rotation) this is a great way of resolving abuse.

Sorry for being terse

 

[Raith5]

For me, I think it helps immensely if a system isn't dogmatic about its errors. If something causes a problem at my table, it helps a lot more if the system is all "Here's a bunch of other stuff you can do," and less if a system is "Well, guess you're on your own, then, if you don't want to do things the way I want you to do them."

Like Merric's point about how the whole system collapses if you drop ability score bonuses: that's a dogmatic system that doesn't know how to let itself be changed. I want a living game that grows and moves with me, not a canon that I must be measured against.

I like this point but I cant help thinking that some systems have greater tolerance for the ways the system gets used.

I am in a 4th ed campaign where there are very big differences around the table with regards to a willingness of players to push the system and create powerful PCs. Some have very powerful PCs (in and out of combat) and some less so. They key thing is the system has allowed these players to coexist even if we grumble about the effectiveness of a player on occasion.

In many ways 4th ed is quite dogmatic and inflexible at a mechanical level. It is dogmatic about roles (which i and others find constraining in some ways) but it has the feature of meaning no matter how you build your character a PC will have some utility via mechanically established strengths, combined with encounter powers, etc. So

 

[Umbran]

Like Merric's point about how the whole system collapses if you drop ability score bonuses: that's a dogmatic system that doesn't know how to let itself be changed.

Ah, but you see, the whole system fails to collapse if the players go, "Hm, if I build my character and seek out magic items and all to really maximize my most important ability scores, things get kinda silly. Maybe I won't do that." That's what I mean by, "stepping around the holes in the game".

I want a living game that grows and moves with me, not a canon that I must be measured against.

Ah. You see, I've never seen a game "grow" in anything like that sense. A game is what it is. It is a set of rules, pretty much static. It is not, as you put it, "living". My personal style changes with time - it may change in ways that stay consistent with one game's abilities, or it may change such that a game no longer does what I desire. But the game is still the same game. My 1e books are still there, and they have the exact same game in them as when they were printed in the 1970.

I don't get the idea of you being measured against the game, insofar as the GM sets the difficulty. You may be measures against a campaign, but not against the game itself.