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

[jonesy]

I used to hang around the WotC CharOp board years ago, and it really made it clear to me that if there was character optimization going on in the game it had to either be for all of the players or none of them. Otherwise the game in all of its editions is horribly broken and unfair. Even a half-decent CharOp player can completely wreck the game. So if you came in to my game with a character like that I also expected you to help the other players who were having problems with theirs.

Nowadays it isn't really an issue because all of the players in our group have been on and off in it for years upon years.

So, I'm not against CharOp, as long as all of the players get to benefit from it. Otherwise I'll start banning splatbooks and the like.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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.

This sums up my feelings as well.

To break 3.5, you could do easily by being a Druid and taking Natural Spell. A wizard can break it well too but that requires levels and a good degree of optimized play. Clerics simply can replace fighters with some thought.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'm not too sure which category I fit into.

I know I'm not a Char-Op player - although I do try to make sure that the character I play follows my imaginings of them. If the character is good in melee, I try to make sure that the mechanics back this up; but not to the point of the Char-Op player I think.

I'm not disillusioned (although I can be critical of particular aspects of a ruleset). The closest I've come to this is in a very high level 3.5 campaign where the wizard was significantly more powerful than the rest of the party because of a couple of very powerful defensive spells that meant they were controlling and dominating the tempo and nature of the campaign. In general though with a deep level of experience with both 3e, 3.x and now Pathfinder, I feel that each evolution of the game has smoothed things out a little bit more so, but not that at any stage the fundamental RAW of each was broken. Most of the issues come with expansions (although PF has been excellent in this regard. They have a very good sense of what to include and what not to.

And I'm not really a just for fun player as I take gaming quite seriously. I love really getting into the head of my characters and roleplaying them to the hilt. For me, it is all about narrative immersion and consistency or verisimilitude if you will. A beer and pretzels gamer I am not.

So, whichever way you want to slice it, I think you can take any game and find somebody who does not synch with the group breaking the experience for everyone. The primary benefit of being in a long term group is that everyone knows how each other players and so this "breaking" of the game won't happen, regardless of the ruleset. It comes down more to unselfishness and respect for all the players at the table than which edition is being played. I think this fits in well with what you are saying about Gurps/Rolemaster/Palladium as systems that can more easily cause issues but don't for certain groups.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[delericho]

I don't count myself as CharOps, JFF or disillusioned. I also don't think Pathfinder is broken. I do find it hideously over-complicated, though.

(The same is true of 4e, FWIW, but for a different reason. With Pathfinder, it's mathematical complexity. With 4e it's the micro-management of conditions and the option bloat.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is amusing. Its funny how the concept of "broken" only applies to an rpg when people decide to let someone else tell them what thier game should be.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

Big number syndrome, is my guess.

Yeah. That, and spellcasters require a lot more study to get right, especially if you're putting one together for high-level play. Spellcasters are better "evolved" than made whole-cloth at high level. Statting out and equipping a fighter or barbarian (or some multiclass/prestige class variation thereof) is much simpler.

 

[Jhaelen]

I don't feel I fit in any of those categories and I disagree that the game is 'broken'. 3e kinda 'breaks down' when the pcs reach high levels, but that's a different issue. Most if not all of your examples seem to indicate why my 3e campaign never 'felt' broken:

As a DM don't feel obliged to allow everything. Players aren't entiteled to play broken crap they've copied from the CO boards, abusing combos pieced together from a dozen supplements.

My main complaint about 3e would be that it was too much work for the DM to prepare (challenging) encounters, not that it was impossible to do so.

 

[Jimlock]

DMG 3.5 p4:

The DM defines the game.
The power of creating worlds, controlling deities and dragons
and leading entire nations is in your hands.
You are the master of the game - the rules, the setting, the action,
and ultimately the fun.

Did not vote. I can't seem to find myself in one of those answers.

The game can always be broken if the DM does nothing about it.

 

[TerraDave]

This is a funny one...

In addition to agreeing with Jhaelen (i.e. I don't want to DM higher level 3E), a good D&D campaign from just about any edition should be able to entertain a range of play-styles, and my groups have had such a range.

Also, the implication, if I even understand, that somehow old school play is somehow linked to not char-oping, or not char-oping, is...well, its something.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Also, the implication, if I even understand, that somehow old school play is somehow linked to not char-oping, or not char-oping, is...well, its something.

If you are talking old school then char-oping used to be simpler:

Lets see, I rolled 16,8,10,9,12,11......

[begin charop routine]

I think that I shall play a fighter.

[end charop routine]