The Gaming Den

did anyone else hear actually enjoy D&D(or other games) for a long time before coming here, simply because they didn't know there was a lot wrong with it, and then be completely ruined and made into the proverbial monster by the information on this site?

Sort of. It was obvious something was up which was causing problems - like monks sucking - but other things - like the wish economy - would never have been an issue.

The benift was once it was layed out what the problem was, and the fixes made avaliable, it's easy enough to address.

Actually, I was already starting to veer away from D&D for various reasons, but I was never able to articulate why until I came here. The only other systems I heard here have been Shadowrun, Rifts, and World of Darkness.

Rifts was something I already knew to be crap. World of Darkness never got much interest in my group when I did try it out. Shadowrun actually got introduced to me through this forum, and I'm trying it out now because of it; the problem being I wasn't warned about the learning curve (its like Deadlands, but less intuitive).

Ultimately, this forum has only really given me words to describe my frustration with systems; and helped me realize that pretty much no game has really met the standards of 'perfection' posited here. And I actively disagree with people who try to say SAME somehow meets it, because I can do the exact same thing with FUDGE with less work.

well, the last thing in my sig is something I just articulated, and I really believe it. Game imbalance is really one of the few monsters that will pretty much ignore you as long as you don't shine a light on it or try to drag it out to do your bidding.

They say that ignorance is bliss.

Before learning of the big problems here (at which point solutions were usually presented along with the problems), I was fine with D&D, except perhaps the fact that arcane casters sucked for the first 4-5 levels, Sorcerers sucked compared to any other caster, and non-full-casters sucked pretty much after level 10. And the huge problems with the ECL system.

A lot of those I could seriously ignore: play games starting at 6th, be a caster and not be a monster (or be a monster in appearance with the stats of a human, whatever). Not ideal, but I could enjoy the game just fine.

Rifts I always knew to be a terrible system and lack any form of balance, I just played/play it anyway because I know the GMs to do a good job. So I play it for those GMs.

Prak Anima wrote:did anyone else hear actually enjoy D&D(or other games) for a long time before coming here, simply because they didn't know there was a lot wrong with it, and then be completely ruined and made into the proverbial monster by the information on this site?

Yes.

In fact, I heard so many bad things about the game, that I crossed into the "Why bother" territory for a year or so. Then I came out on the side of "There's no way a roleplaying game is ever going to be balanced so long as people want to have different characters" and started questioning the system based on its hassle: "In order to play X character, how much do I want to do math and read through a gajillion supplements? Oh, I don't? Great. Let's play Everway."

So I only really play D&D with those people who desperately feel the need to have lots of really big numbers that they can add to other numbers that they roll on a die. I even give them min-maxing advice so their numbers are the biggest numbers they can be.

Sure. When I was 12. I don't necessarily despise 3.x and what not, but I can't play it without meta-ing the hell out of it. Either to not suck, or not to be too good.

But... a game is simply better if they do a good job on it. A lot of stuff in a lot of games is half assed. And pretending it isn't a problem is like cutting off your legs and pretending that isn't an issue because you didn't want to walk anyway.

On a slighty more serious note, game balance issues can bite you in the ass even if you aren't looking for them or trying for them. People pull shitty or fantastic characters out of their ass all the time. DMs screw up, with monsters or items. People stumble on amazing combos, just out of sheer random chance.

Look Prak, buddy, I don't know where you are going with your cunningly, and I suspect deliberately, flawed "is flawed stuff OK" post.

But seriously.

Are you really sigging a quote of yourself discussing a quote by someone else discussing a quote by yourself?

It's like a vanity onion.

It's my belief that balance never hurts, and should ever be striven for. But true balance is impossible, and it may well only be possible to achieve "Sorta balanced".

I also believe through personal experience that it's amazing what you can achieve with enthusiasm and a gentleman's agreement.

-Desdan

Prak_Anima at [unixtime wrote:1189929712[/unixtime]]well, the last thing in my sig is something I just articulated, and I really believe it. Game imbalance is really one of the few monsters that will pretty much ignore you as long as you don't shine a light on it or try to drag it out to do your bidding.

I get that, and I disagree, but that aside do you think that maybe you could promote the Oberoni Fallacy with a wee smaller sig, and maybe not on every single post?

Seriously. Just cut it down to the last line. The rest of it isn't relevant to your see no evil, hear no evil stance anyway.

The arcane casters sucking note is a good one

It's funny, when starting out with 3rd I sort of figured that sleep and colour spray where AWESOME and magic missle sucked at level 1.. but at level 2, i'd look at flaming sphere and go 'aww man' totally ignoring web and glitterdust.. which are brilliant.

i enjoy the game despite its flaws but only because no one I play with have taken it quite to the level of stupidity which people here have found possible. But it has been blatantly obvoius that it is truly damaged and needs to be fixed. While impressed by Frank and K's work (which drew me to this board) it is not the direction I wish to go with the game, though the unsorted material about how we really only pay 6th level and should just stay here does make a lot of sense to me. Heck I'm gonna play WEG star wars once our campaign finishes in a few weeks so hopefully I'll find some compromise between then and the next fantasy game we play

Part of the issues I've come to see is that the flaws in some systems are worse than others by virtue of the fact some of the systems work under the assumption that you don't need to be Admiral Nelson in order for the game to be balanced.

Mutants & Masterminds, a game that I thoroughly enjoy, makes itself clear that you need DM abjucation on character design just on genre conventions alone (not even counting power designs).

Dungeons & Dragons, with its background of a supposedly rigorous play-testing cycle and numerical balancing on many levels, gives you a false impression of balance; which makes its flaws even harder to ignore. Dirt on a white horse, and all that.

I feel more comfortable walking into a game where the flaws are open. I am also insulted when I'm considered the one at fault for noticing the flaws (which WotC is infamous for).

When I started to play 3rd edition, one of my friends took a look at the Monk class and said "hey, that looks awesome". We've been trying to fix the game ever since.

I've had to DM and play in campaigns where if there was a combat, the difference in player power meant that either the weaklings had to run and hide to not die, or the powerful characters would have a total cake-walk.

I've DM'd Rifts with a Vagabond, Heavy Cyborg, Bounty Hunter, and Juicer all together in a party. Another campaign's PC set was comprised of a CS Special Forces, Psi-Hunter, Seljuk Burster, Shifter, and Phoenixi. These weren't easy groups to challenge appropriately. They weren't looking to break the system, they chose the characters they wanted to play and in the spirit of a game that would let you be just about anything I said why not.

In my very last Rifts campaign I had progressed to the point where I had more house rules than there were rules in the books. Among those house rules was that on a case by case basis I started different class types at different levels to give a semblance of balance. It was easier to do all that than use the rules as written. We mostly had fun, but it was a lot of work to keep the wheels greased smoothly.

Another game where I've had poor run-ins with the rules would be Deadlands. My first character was a blessed with a quickness of 3d4. The rest of the character really didn't matter much since I never got to do a damned thing the moment combat started. I had no notion of how the rules worked before making the character, didn't know that not being quick on the draw also meant not being able to do anything, ever.

From that point forward I abused the hell out of the system after my first character's inevitable and highly anticipated demise. I'd paid my dues.

Deadlands was my favorite roleplaying game largely due to the setting and the fact that it was one of the few games where I was a PC and the DM was one of the members in my group who knew how to min/max and use sensible tactics. We persevered over the crummy mechanics in having fun.

I like and continue to play WoW.

I wonder why this is the reason the majority of people in the USA reject certain laws or testimonies. Not because they're against freedom or hate minorities or want to bomb other countries, they are reluctant to face any fact that paints America in a less-than-good light. Examining the flaws, even if it's for a greater good, makes people ashamed/unenamored/whatever.

After reading this thread, I think this idea has merit.

Draco_Argentum at [unixtime wrote:1190029103[/unixtime]]I like and continue to play WoW.

I find WoW to be a breath of fresh air compared to most traditional RPGs (WoD, D&D) in that it's not horribly unbalanced. Warlocks are too awesome, combat-control is too good, and Rogues get too much of it, but at least you can't auto-win the game by, say, permanently mind-controlling everyone you meet.

Overall it's a bad game, but as far as bad games go it's better than some others.

I can answer yes. Not only that but I actually enjoyed Vampire the Masquerade, DC heros, and a whole bunch of systems where the rule potholes could swallow 18 wheelers.

Basically put there are several ways to react to the fact that the emperor has no clothes. You can just pretend to avoid the problem and look the other way. You can pass an edict forcing people to look the other way. (As was the case with Lady Godiva.) You can stare and point and shout "but the emperor is naked!"

I've run a number of games in 2E and 3E and no one even knew of the wish economy. They didn't know the emperor was naked because they never even thought to look at the emperor in the first place. On the other hand I've known those same groups who knew all the problems of DC and Vampire and basically decided to avoid them by not using them.

I just said "Fuck It" and stopped caring about minor rules inconsistencies and pouring through dozens of sourcebooks to find a specific feat, and decided to just alter stuff on the spot.
Oh, and I also read through Frank's Tome Series. It is not "The Only D20 Rules That Make Sense," it is just as breakable as normal D&D. Plus, a large portion of it involves complaining about rules as they are. Look, Frank, we know that Law and Chaos do not make sense, so don't tell us all about it verbatim, just show us your god-damn changes.
In conclusion, I believe that every RPG out there has an inherent feature in the Core Rules that, when applied, will throw game balance out the window. When you find it, you have officially won the game, even if the game was not about winning.

In a word yes, I can enjoy the game. Yes every system has flaws some more than others. I still enjoy a game of BESM, Dnd, EABA, and Fuzion (Bubbulegum Crisis and Lodoss War) and Shadowrun. As long as I can make a character in a resonable amount of time and I can grasp the rules as I play I am fine. Certain systems I will not play unless there are certain caveats (like playing Robotech or Rift) all and all as long as I can't have fun I really don't care about the system

Grues are balanced as long as you stay out of the dark.

Same applies to most RPGs, but replace 'grue' with 'rules imbalance' and 'dark' with 'trying to get exactly what you want'.

The question is pretty stupid on its face.

Of course we can still enjoy a flawed game. We (or me at least) just enjoy it less. In many cases, a whole lot less.

In DnD the main BALANCE issue is the character level to CR discrepancies. Some classes are more powerful than the average monster of their CR, some are less. This is a problem because most DMs don't know the difference between the classes in terms of power, and even if they did, they wouldn't have the ability to fix it on the fly (in many cases, at all). Consequently, the game is less fun because a 7th level party when faced with a CR9(which is an even match), depending on composition, could: 1)require a miracle to win, 2)win half the time, or 3)win in a cakewalk. The first one sucks, because the game ends, and probably without even hitting anything so tough as supposedly even match. The second one is fine, and in fact the goal of game balance. The third one sucks because there is no challenge, without which you might as well eliminate the "game" from role-playing game.

The problem actually gets *worse* in parties because each individual player can screw up and either make a character who is too weak or too strong. Too many of the former, and you get problem #1. Too many of the latter (depending on what you do, "too many" could easily be 1 person) and you get problem #3. Further, a few of each has it's own problems. For example, the expenditure of resources to keep the weaker members alive will be disproportionate to their usefulness. But in a cooperative game, you are expected to do so anyway, which means the stronger members are effectively handicapping themselves, leaving themselves vulnerable. I don't know about anyone else, but I HATE it when my characters get killed due to other people's stupidity.

BTW, I think there is a large misunderstanding about a lot of what Frank and K write. While some of it is designed to restore class balance, a lot of it is merely extrapolation from the DnD rules to the inevitable consequences of having these things around. The Wish economy isn't supposed to be regarded as a good idea, it's supposed to be the result of leaving things the way they are.