D&D General Kicking the tires vs. puncturing the tires; being effective vs. breaking the game

[Warpiglet-7]

I have enjoyed a few recent threads which have wandered into interesting territory. It is one that clearly demonstrates that people have widely varying opinions and tastes and have very good justification for point and counter point. I mean I have always known this; it’s just really been on display.

And this made me wonder about varying approaches to D&D.

Some “problems” I can rationally understand, but they don’t bother me. And the same can be said about other people and other “problems.”

Some seem to manifest when people kick the tires. Hard. Night level “competitive” play vs. more standard doing what seems cool and works.

Some folks push interpretations into territory I see as cheese; even one of my pals does this.

Some people want more developed detailed rules. Some want enough for resolution to just keep it moving to the next big decision point.

How many of our complaints about editions A B or C a function of our approach? So many concerns just have not been a problem for me where others seem to think it’s game breaking?

Is an unbreakable game really possible? If it was, would the flavor be leeched out of it?

 

[payn]

I think we are talking generalities here so its hard to answer with any specifics. I know that there are system design flaws because I hear folks talk about them online; even though ive never personally experienced them. I dont discount these perspectives, I do discount overstated arguments declaring doom of a bad system though. Sort of looking to my left and seeing folks saying, "this inst a problem because I dont have it", and looking to my right and seeing "the game is bad and should be ended because I do have this problem."

That said, I think the unbreakable game is a myth. What there is, are systems designed where the gap between optimized and unoptimized is as narrow as allowable by the rules. In a game that often has a mix of causal and hardcore players that is a virtue, IMO. I have come to find that flavor is very subjective. Some folks derive it from immersing in the rules language itself, and others are capable of separating mechanics from flavor almost entirely. I don't think you will have consensus on a balanced system having or lacking flavor by mechanics alone.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

5E doesn't break easy.

Honestly, unless I see:

A) A player wanting to multiclass CHA classes

or

B) A few very select races/subclasses

I don't there's even a point in worrying about 5E being broken by player choices. The one way 5E often does break is bad DMing and/or houserules.

Now player parity is a slightly different issue and not the same thing as breaking the game. If one player goes for "normal" optimization - i.e. an EK Fighter with GWF, GWM, not even PAM (none of this being insane reach-y stuff), and another player is just a normally optimized Warlock, and then third player chooses to be like, a bad Rogue subclass and allocates his skills without any attention to his stats or even what makes a Rogue work, and well then yes, the third player will be noticeably less effective but who is the one screwing up? I don't think it's the first or second player. They're doing logical, reasonable things that don't break the game. If anyone is "breaking the game" in this scenario, is the guy bringing in anti-optimized character when all they had to do was pay slightly more attention. But really no-one is.

4E was much better if you wanted all the players on an equal footing because it was much easier for a player to find the guiderails, as it were, and classes were even more even.

 

[Zardnaar]

Mostly about personal preferences. I've really hone off numbers porn in 3E and 4E. I don't mind say micrograms as a concept but they were poorly done in those editions. Another example is domain management in B/X
I like it others may not.

Other posters might feel differently of course. Ultimately it depends on how many people agree with you. Objectively 5E is the biggest D&D of all time. Subjectively you may or may not like it ymmv.

 

[overgeeked]

How many of our complaints about editions A B or C a function of our approach? So many concerns just have not been a problem for me where others seem to think it’s game breaking?

I think a big part of the problem is we start with assumptions about how things should be and judge games based on that rather than taking them at face value and judging them on their own merits.

Is an unbreakable game really possible? If it was, would the flavor be leeched out of it?

Is it possible, yes absolutely. That depends entirely on how you define flavor. Things like Fate, Fiasco, and others are balanced around different criteria so the question of breakable in the power gaming sense just isn't there. Games like Marvel Heroic RPG aren't really breakable because, despite a few exploits, just don't have mechanics than can be broken. Those games all have heaps of flavor. I think 4E is the best balanced game WotC has put out, it dripped with flavor, and some people still complained it was flavorless. So who knows?

 

[MichaelSomething]

I'm not "breaking the game" I'm employing "high skilled gaming"

I'm suppose to use whatever the fiction allows to gain as much advantage as possible! New school players count and track damage like Old school players count and track arrows and rations!

 

[iserith]

I expect that players, myself included, will try as hard as they can to be the best they can be within the limits of the rules. That's normal behavior as far as I'm concerned, so I'm not surprised by it.

Luckily for my DMs, I'm not terribly good at it.

 

[Oofta]

There are a couple of combos I'd prefer my players not use. But that's largely because of the disparity of effectiveness between PCs, not because it "breaks" anything. To me it's great if a PC shines now and then, even if they trivialize what was supposed to be a difficult encounter. I just don't want on PC dominating every encounter.

When it comes to "generous" interpretations of the rules I just remind people that anything they can do, my NPCs can also do that tends to do the trick most of the time. That, and I have no qualms about using the word "no" when people push things too far.

As a DM I have to be flexible and structure encounters so that we have a reasonable balance of difficulty, challenge and players feeling like they're contributing on a regular basis.

I've found that I can do that in 5E, better than in many previous editions. Or I just haven't run across these hypothetical broken characters. Yet.

 

[overgeeked]

As a DM I have to be flexible and structure encounters so that we have a reasonable balance of difficulty, challenge and players feeling like they're contributing on a regular basis.

The single thing I’ve done that’s done the most to fix power gaming and bring challenge back to the game is to use clocks instead of hit points for monsters and base monster stats directly on PC stats.

 

[Vaalingrade]

People are too busy trying to have capabilities that feel competent in the face of a d20 roll to break anything.