Problems with Game or in Game?

[pemerton]

I submit that these problems (and I won't insult either camp by using quote marks around the term) are not necessarily indicative of a broken system, but rather a more telling indication of the players (or Dungeon Master) thinking in metagame terms, looking for loopholes, or otherwise going out of their way to push the envelope to get their way/to win/to control the players/whatever.

<snip>

Most of the builds seem to require that the DM allows unlimited access to everything ever written, that the player will get all the magic items they need for the build, and that the DM is asleep or unwilling to say "No."

In a good set of gaming rules the game won't break if the players follow the rules. RPGs are the only game I know of where people are prepared to say that the breaking of the game when rules are followed is the fault of the players and not the designers.

As to GMs saying "No", this assumes that the GM has a degree of power which is simply not true for many groups, and not always healthy in those groups where it is true.

Some games are sold as toolkits (eg Rolemaster), in which it is expected that the GM and the players will tinker with various options and alter them to generate the playstyle they want for their game. But D&D is not. It's sold as a playable game out of the box. But in many respects 3E doesn't live up to this promise. (See Doug McCrae's examples above.)

 

[racoffin]

In a good set of gaming rules the game won't break if the players follow the rules. RPGs are the only game I know of where people are prepared to say that the breaking of the game when rules are followed is the fault of the players and not the designers.

As to GMs saying "No", this assumes that the GM has a degree of power which is simply not true for many groups, and not always healthy in those groups where it is true.

Some games are sold as toolkits (eg Rolemaster), in which it is expected that the GM and the players will tinker with various options and alter them to generate the playstyle they want for their game. But D&D is not. It's sold as a playable game out of the box. But in many respects 3E doesn't live up to this promise. (See Doug McCrae's examples above.)

No, I'd suggest that breaking of the game often occurs when gamers attempt to take the rules and stretch them as far as they will go. The letter of the rules can be followed exactly and still break the spirit of the rules. the designers don't often take into account that some gamers will sit down and mathematically work out the absolute best build they possibly can. They try to make a balanced game and don't often take into consideration that if you go to what some may consider extremes you can turn even the most basic spell or ability into some monstrosity.

As far as the DM not being able to say no or it being a matter of power, I disagree. If the players are unwilling to deal with reasonable guidelines and world builds, then the DM isn't doing themselves or the players any favors by letting them run wild.

Eric Wiener/Paradigm said something over on the Witch Hunter thread that really struck home with me and seems to illustrate what I am trying to say with regards to this:

I think that the fact that some fairly sharp gamers were willing to nominate us as Best Rules should indicate that the game is playable. Having designed and published gaming product for many years now, I've come to realize that anything that does not fit a person's perception of balance will not just be described as "too good", it will be described as game-breaking-play-ruining-anyone-that-doesn't-use-this-is-an-idiot-what-the-hell-were-you-thinking-you-morons bad. The simple fact is, no matter how smart you are, no matter how skilled your play testers are, you are massively outnumbered by players that want to get the most out their characters.​

D&D, be it 3E, 4E, OD&D, or 12E, is certainly playable out of the box. Does whichever edition address everthing for everyone? Quite possibly not; however that doesn't make the edition not playable by any stretch.

 

[pemerton]

As far as the DM not being able to say no or it being a matter of power, I disagree. If the players are unwilling to deal with reasonable guidelines and world builds, then the DM isn't doing themselves or the players any favors by letting them run wild.

Again, this seems to assume something about the GM/player relationship ("letting them run wild") which is not true in all groups.

Eric Wiener/Paradigm said something over on the Witch Hunter thread that really struck home with me and seems to illustrate what I am trying to say with regards to this

<snip>

D&D, be it 3E, 4E, OD&D, or 12E, is certainly playable out of the box. Does whichever edition address everthing for everyone? Quite possibly not; however that doesn't make the edition not playable by any stretch.

I saw that post. I don't think it applies to high-level 3E. Nor, I suspect, to 1st ed AD&D. It is certainly true of Moldvay/Cook D&D. (I know, I played it out of the box. I also had a lot of fun with AD&D, but I don't think I could have got a game out of those books if I didn't already know Basci and Expert D&D.)

In part, I guess it depends on what you mean by "playable". In a very literal sense 3E has rules that will allow an RPG to be played. But compared to the play experience that other games offer, it seems not to deliver everything that might be expected from an RPG play experience. On the thread debating the Fly spell in 3E and 4e, someone (AllisterH?) made the point that 3E suffered from just cutting and pasting the old AD&D spells into an otherwise very revamped ruleset, without really taking account of how that might affect gameplay. I feel that that is true - that 3E is, to an extent, caught between two stools (AD&D on the one hand, and more contemporary RPGing on the other). 4e has definitely chosen which stool to be on, and is very obviously (to me, at least) AD&D no more.

(A further complexity is that, unlike many other RPGs, D&D is expected to be (nearly) all things to (nearly) all people, so that what is even meant by "playing D&D" can vary wildly from group to group.)

The edition-wars ban makes me hesitant to say too much about (what are, in my opinion) 3E's flaws. But when I compare it to other games - some from a much earlier period, like RQ or RM - it doesn't necessarily measure up all that strongly.

The four posters on these board who seem (to me, at least) to best capture the limitations of 3E as an RPG are Hussar, Doug McCrae, Mustrum Ridcully and Ian Argent. Those limitations are a result of (among other things) the extremely rapid scaling of numerical bonuses (and hence the need for a comparably rapid scaling of level-appropriate target numbers), the divergence of those bonuses from PC to PC, the rapid growth in hit points and damage potential, and the divergence of those numbers from PC to PC. A consequence is these limitations is the difficulty of designing satisfactory encounters for mid-to-high level play. And that is a mechanical thing, not a playstyle thing.

The way that bonuses are developed and deployed in games like RQ or RM means that this scaling issue does not become a problem in the same way. And in RM, at least, it is possible to design interesting encounters using a wide range of creatures. In particular, the mere fact that the PCs have significantly higher skill numbers than their enemies doesn't mean that a combat becomes uninteresting to play out. There are still meaningful decisions for the players to make, and meaningful consequence resulting from those choices.

There are other issues also that I personally have with 3E - eg its emphasis on encounter grinding as the main focus of play, which is espcially apparent in WoTC modules - but I think my taste in adventures is probably a little different from the norm for ENworld. This feature of 3E adventures also has a mechanical cause - namely, the reward (ie XP and treasure mechanics) - but I'm probably in a minority in identifying those mechanics as flawed.

 

[RFisher]

RPGs are the only game I know of where people are prepared to say that the breaking of the game when rules are followed is the fault of the players and not the designers.

Most RPGs rules aren’t meant to be more than guidelines and starting points. The whole point of the genre is having a human judge to allow the game to be more flexible than any set of rules could provide for.

3e’s trying to “take the DM out of the equation” was an aberration, though even in that case I don’t believe the designers expected everyone to play it that way. Or anyone to play it that way once they had a certain amount of experience.

And, in my experience, most groups do put the DM back into the equation when playing 3e.

 

[pemerton]

Most RPGs rules aren’t meant to be more than guidelines and starting points. The whole point of the genre is having a human judge to allow the game to be more flexible than any set of rules could provide for.

There are multiple dimensions to this issue. RM2/Classic is very different from (for example) Moldvay Basic D&D in that respect. The former presupposes a lot of GM intervention, choices between mechanical options, etc. GM judgement is required for settling on the ruleset. GM judgement is also required to set manoeuvre difficulties, which then serve as inputs into the mechanics.

On the other hand, Moldvay Basic sets out a set of mechanics to be applied, and then says to the GM "Make the rest up, on an action-by-action basis" (one example is given, from memory, of the GM deciding that a PC has an 80% chance to jump up and reach a lever). The nature of GM judgement required here is quite different - unlike RM, for example, it doesn't require the GM to be a co-designer.

In neither game, however, do the mechanics actively get in the way of delivering the intended play experience. What prompted my original comment was the fact that, where mechanics do inhibit play, the players of the game are blamed rather than the designers. (What would count as a mechanic that hinders play? Well, 3E fly was the original topic of discussion. Elemental Companion for RM2 is generally agreed to be broken in multiple respects, which me and my players found out the hard way. More controversially, I think that Talents & Flaws - which are part of RMSS - hinder the RM play experience, by diluting what is one of its strongest features, namely, its DP-based character build system, and so I don't use them in my RM games.)

I think it is not uncommon for RPGs to include rules aspects that don't serve the purpose of supporting play with that RPG. These are bad rules. The unhappy play experience that results is not the players' fault. In a game like RM, which self-consciously adopts a toolbox mentality and a corresponding sort of GM, those bad rules can be excised once discovered (in my experience at least players will co-operate in this). In D&D it is harder, I think, because of the sort of expectations about rules solidness that its players have.

3e’s trying to “take the DM out of the equation” was an aberration, though even in that case I don’t believe the designers expected everyone to play it that way. Or anyone to play it that way once they had a certain amount of experience.

And, in my experience, most groups do put the DM back into the equation when playing 3e.

I like the idea of the GM coming into the equation as an action-by-action adjudicator. But (speaking for myself) my GMing time is becoming increasingly limited, and I would like to play a fantasy RPG that didn't require me to be a co-designer.