Is the game broken depending on the way you play/view it?

[GreyLord]

There have always been munchkins, powergamers, and rules lawyers/rules twisters, but IN MY OWN OPINION, I think 3.X brought some of these more to the fore front and into how many play the game.

I thought these people who created a character with 4 races and 7 classes were only products of fantasy found on the CharOps boards...that was until I ran into one in real life. The first player I was introduced to had something (can't recall exactly, but similar) like a Half Werewolf, half Demon, Half Minotaur, Half Vampire, Half Ghoul, Wizard/Cleric/Druid/???? (other classes i can't recall) and some strange convoluted story to try to make it all make sense. The next guy had some equally odd character who had class levels in hulking hurler or something, and by the time we were done...it seemed like a little odd game where no one was human, everyone was what typically would be classified as monsters, and yet these were supposed to be the heroes.

I also found that this was really not MY style of game. Actually...I hated it.

They didn't seem so concerned with how I roleplayed, as much as what they did in battle, and with it the supposed freedom that they had to create what they wanted...though I may question their motives of such statements.

Now, DON'T GET ME WRONG...what they did was actually excellent. It's a great way to play. They get to enjoy the game that they want, and there's NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT AT ALL!

What this brings up however, is I think there are different types of players. The two types might not actually like playing in the other's games.

This however, is not about the players there, but their perceptions.

So, I'd like to categorize (and it's actually pretty hard to categorize) the two types of players, those that like the extreme of CharOps or what some may call munchkin powergaming...and those that actually dislike that type of play preferring something more akin to taking a class and roleplaying the heck out of it without worry of whether they can max out the character by twisting such and such a rule or find some way to get such synergy out of classes as to make the unstoppable PunPun.

Stop for a second as I talk about a second concept, and what this is really going to center on asking.

In all ages since gaming began there has been resolutions in regards to game balance. Many systems that are loved by others are actually quite badly balanced...aka...they can be broken by a munchkin so certain "builds" will quickly outstrip other "builds" in regards to power and ability...at least in regards to combat and killing things.

Gurps, Rolemaster, Rifts/Palladium and others have been played by many, and loved by many. Many still play the games with enthusiasm, whilst others call them broken beyond fixing and unplayable.

Why is it then that some can consider the above games balanced and enjoyable, whislt others consider them completely unbalanced and broken?

This leads me to 3.X (and I'll include Pathfinder in that mix) which many consider broken and in some instances unplayable. They consider the Fighter a weak class (though with how some munchkins go on about spellcasters, why suddenly every fighter doesn't have a sword akin to a Paladin's Holy Avenger, only that it makes a 10' Anti-Magic shell around them simply to even the odds a little bit in the Fighter's favor, at least at some levels), a monk a weak and unplayable class, and anyone who takes those classes are idiots.

Others like me feel that the DM ultimately controls balance, and in that the game of 3.X is actually pretty well balanced. I'd apply that to all older versions of D&D and AD&D. All these games were balanced with the adage of simply playing the game for fun.

These two groups do NOT see eye to eye. I do not think either way is the wrong way to play OR to see a game. For some 3.X or Pathfinder IS BROKEN, for others it is not. It is the playstyle.

However, when trying to figure out what types see 3.X as broken and those who do not see it as broken, it gets to be harder to actually categorize those people.

I'd some are the munchkin/powergaming/rules twisting/charops types...that for simplicity from here out I'll just name as the CharOps. Others have played with such people and become disillusioned with the game and consider it broken.

On the otherhand you have those that are also CharOps (but I find these a LOT less, actually don't recall meeting one in real life that didn't consider 3.X or Pathfinder somewhat broken as far as class powerlevels) that may consider it a non-broken game. Others that are not CharOps do NOT find it broken at all.

So, for purposes of the Poll, if you are not CharOps that doesn't mean you don't powergame a little (I think everyone tries to optimize their character to a degree in some area...just not to the degree a CharOp does...It's hard to explain, the best I could put it would be it's all in the attitude and how they approach the game), and it doesn't mean you don't like to memorize or use the rules...it means that you aren't of the mindset that the above munchkin/powergamer/rules twister/CharOp type is. If you are one I feel you'd probably know, and if you aren't one...you'd also know.

With the caveat that if you ever threw a fit and refused to play because a DM rule 0'd that you couldn't use a non-core book such as Savage Species, DungeonScape...or for you old Schoolers in 1e, Unearthed Arcana...or other non-core book...even if you don't feel that you are a CharOp...refusing to play simply due to not being allowed to use a non-essential book could mean that you fall into that realm.

Anyways onto the poll...basically somewhat of your own opinion of where you stand here...seeing if there IS a dividing line between

CharOps (as I defined with the munchkin/powergaming/rules twisting/CharOp type),

those disillusioned (either by playing with a CharOps and feeling it broke the game, or playing with a JFF and felt they broke the game with how they played)

and those who are what I'd now call...your "Just for Fun" or JFF player which isn't as into CharOp (as explained above).

For ease we'll refer to the game as D&D 3.5 but it can also stand for whichever D20 version you feel is most balanced between 3e/3.5/Pathfinder and whether you feel the MOST BALANCED version in your eyes is broken in regards to balance or not.

I'll also have it so that you can choose multiple choices (who knows, maybe you CharOp sometimes, and other times you don't and have different views depending on what you are doing).

PS: Before any of you jump down my throat, and though I stated it above, let me be EXPLICITLY CLEAR. If you are a CharOp, a Disillusioned, or a JFF...NONE OF THESE ARE BAD in ANY WAY. They are simply DIFFERENT WAYS of playing the game of D&D. They can all be fun ways to play the game and exceptionally fun in their own way. Do not take any of my post as critisizing how you play...you and I may play differently, but I respect that you have your method of play. It is just as valid and respectable as my method or any OTHER METHOD of playing the game.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Disillusioned?

I read your post and I am not sure what you mean by this, but is sounds negative.

But to ignore the poll options and answer, I think in most cases games can be played quite well, unless someone inteh group (or the whole group) tries to break them.

I will use 4E as an example as 3.5 has no official eratta.

In 4E, WOTC has made tons of changes. Page after page after page of them, and for me and my group, the vast majority are inconsequential.

Sure, some are needed (like the battlerager fighter, which a friend will play soon), but the vast majority are only 'broken' if players do ridiculous combinations of races or classes, or build to abuse a single part of the game. Unless you play with people like that, then 98% of the 4E changes were not needed, and can be ignored.

In my opinion most games are reasonable well balanced, unless the group or player tries deliberately to break them. If you play nice, then there is little need to errata the game.

The Lair assault thread over in the 4E forum has a lot of examples of people doing the weirdest builds and party structures just to try to beat the challenge.

It is one playstyle for sure, but I would argue it is out onteh bleeding edge.

 

[GreyLord]

Disillusioned?

I read your post and I am not sure what you mean by this, but is sounds negative.

Didn't mean for it to sound negative. I simply couldn't think of any other way to say it. More of someone who may play one way, but got unhappy about a game system because someone plays another way and it changed how they feel about the game.

Hence it's nothing that they themselves did or how they played, but based more on how someone else played or presented the game to them.

 

[howandwhy99]

Other - I play 3.x/Pathfinder 'cause that's what the guys I hang out with want to play sometimes. I don't consider myself disillusioned to the game, but I don't care for it or the design philosophy behind it.

In terms of brokenness, I don't think any of the versions are broken for a JFF game. I play that way now, sort of. For a CharOp game, I think it has a lot of ardent followers doing just that. So it's fun for them. I have played it this way years ago and it can be satisfying. As an exploration puzzle game? It isn't satisfying and far too difficult to run as such.

 

[IronWolf]

Not sure I totally agree with your category names, but I do agree there are different categories of gamers playing the same game. And when these gamers sit down at the same table some oddities may result.

 

[Luce]

I voted Other.

Let see...
Other games (such as gurps) while having a plethora of supplementary materials cannot come to fraction of the amount that D&D has throughout the editions. One of the drawing point that the game has for me is exactly this support. In previous editions thanks to the "Dungeon" magazine new DM and players were exposed to variety of (styles of gaming) at a very reasonable price. This made the learning curve more manageable for younger/new players.
Other systems more often either tended to be more niche focus (I like L5R for example, but trying to run "kick in the door" style of game seems to go against the intentions of the game) or relied on the GM/ST to make the stories/chronicles/adventures what-have-you.
This leads to the result of other systems to tend to have more "hardcore" gamers. Which often leads to internal policing of gaming groups. Also since D&D has the largest exposure more people are familiar with it then more niche systems. [I would like to run me a game of BESM, Endival or Burning wheel for years but very few people know those systems.]

Another point is that (IME) most gamers start playing in their teens. Meaning: 0) Most often long time friends. 1) At that stage they lack the life experience/emotional development level for certain games (Will you play Wraith the Oblivion with 13 year old? I wouldn't.) 2) Different social dynamic. When the group consist of 13, 15 and 16 year old, some characters are better/more effective. And not necessary due to cheating. Even everything else being equal this few crucial extra years of experience make a difference. 3) This also leads to more consistent gaming stile throughout the group, or at least the GM knows the players well enough to cater to testes. 4) It is a stage of experimentation, trying different games/setting/variant rules without reservation. This is possible thanks to having more free time that overlaps-Summer vacation, spring break, snow days.

Life dynamics. Somewhat related to the previous point.
Early game experiences tend to be within a circle of friends. As people grow up go to college, marry and have career and children it becomes harder and harder to have a consistent group that way you have in earlier years. Players come and go. Different players have different expectations/standards of what is a good game. Scheduling becomes a big issue for older players. They go for depth rather then breath, that is become very proficient at a few systems. Few problems can stem from that:
1) Gamer knowledge. If you invested a large amount of time in a game and internalized the rules/facts it becomes very difficult to overlook what you know either to gain an advantage or to overlook an deviation (breaking you suspension of disbelief). [Setting lawyering]
2) Extreme rule mastery, to the point of exploring a lot of loopholes.
Example:Lets say, there is an ability that lets you roll exploding damage few times a day (that is re-roll max roll (ex. 8 on d8, 4 on d4)). On the surface look good, especially on a critical, but not that game breaking. "Did you say you custom order a thousand adamantium needles?!" Can you see where this is going? No? Let me give you a hint: Möbius strip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia AKA a real life example of what 1d1 can look like. The above was not implemented in game, though it become in-joke, now when you roll max damage on a crit you have to say "Attack of the thousand needles" (It is more cool then it sounds, at least we like it )
The above was just an example how with enough real life knowledge and persistence any system can be broken.

Resent communication explosion.
1)Before the mid 90s the loopholes you knew were limited to what your group had discovered or you learned while attending conventions.
Now many are a google search away.
2) Game companies like other businesses started to have an easier feedback loop. The problem is that that sometimes gives a more active minority disproportionately more influence.
In other words outliers can devastating effect on trend prediction.
Lets say somebody finds a way for 4 level group to wipe the floor with a mind flayer with ease. They share it with other charOp focused parties, and suddenly WOC is receiving a lot of complains on their boards that the CR of flayers is flawed. (This is a moment to say that not every charOp player I met wants to dominate the game, many just like to be challenged. Many like to use complex real life inspired tactics and expect the DM to bring the play to their level.) So the company introduces a newer tougher breeds of flayers/ or new items or erratas them.
This creates an ever increasing gap between the optimized and the unoptimized.

In summary, D&D happens to be the most widely played system (not necessary exclusively) and as such attract larger variety of players who does not always see eye to eye. Other systems, due to either their more focused creation to support a certain style of play and/or more limited number of supplements require more focus to learn and master.

Many D&D groups consisting of adults tend to be more fluid, people coming and going. This can creates (at least an initial) disjointness in expectation since unlike some other games there is a larger range of playing style. I like that there is no one "True Way" to play specified in the rules, but that can sometimes cause clash of expectations.

Finally I like to point out that there is a "Wrong Way" to play, and that is to "not have fun". One of the best remedies for the hobby IMO is for individual gaming groups to focus on making their own experiences enjoyable and do not worry too much of how other people do aor do not play. Revolution from within the ranks so to speak. All too often I found myself too caught in a heated discussion and start start to judge. First I do not know all the facts, and Second it is unlikely that I will ever be in the same group with the other posters. Lets switch from "live and let die" to "agree to disagree" and walk away from the endless and ultimately fruitless discussions that only polarize the community.
Have fun and happy gaming.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

Yeah, I can see this. By the middle of 3e/3.5, I was beginning to see so many nonsensical "cantina scene" parties that I finally put the kibosh on that nonsense. Since putting the kibosh on it consisted of playing Midnight (which places more restrictions on PCs than most D&D settings, but also grants more customizable innate powers), nobody really complained.

Pathfinder seems to have fixed this aspect at least temporarily. By taking Monster PCs/ECL rules out of the core, and focusing all the expansions on building options for more conventional characters and classes (cavaliers and alchemists, rather than half-dragons and vampire spawn, and so on), Pathfinder has allowed for extensive customization for characters without making changes that destroy game/party cohesion.

Overall, though, I've never seen what is so broken about the 3e/3.5/pathfinder system, at least nothing that 4e doesn't "cure" by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I like stackable classes, templates, a robust skill system, a robust spellcasting system, and a combat system where I have options for any maneuver I want. Yes, casters are weaker early (though not unplayably so, at least not in any 3e/3.5/pathfinder I've ever played!) and stronger later (though most of the powergamers I've known, when given the chance to build a high-level character, would rather build a fighter, barbarian or paladin than any kind of spellcaster- riddle me that?).

I've never experienced the "15-minute" gameday. Probably has something to do with DMing style, and making sure players know they can't get away with that. My dungeons aren't static entities, and my enemies think. Deal with it.

 

[Griego]

(though most of the powergamers I've known, when given the chance to build a high-level character, would rather build a fighter, barbarian or paladin than any kind of spellcaster- riddle me that?)

Big number syndrome, is my guess.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Not sure I totally agree with your category names, but I do agree there are different categories of gamers playing the same game. And when these gamers sit down at the same table some oddities may result.

This about sums it up - 'I don't agree with your categories, and don't think the game is broken'

Sensors picking up axe grinding from the OP.

The Auld Grump

 

[Hussar]

I'm a JFF player/DM, but, I would reword the "the game is broken" option to "The game is fairly easy to break".

It's easy to break D&D just using core rules to be honest. OTOH, it's not that hard to avoid breaking the game as well, so, while I know I can, doing so would not be fun for me, so I don't.