How is 'x isn't broken/bad because the GM can make adjustments!' still an argument that gets made in the modern day?
I'm not calling any specific mechanic or game out right now. I'm just surprised. I thought this idea would have died sometime back in the old DnD3e days instead of something being used to defend certain mechanics even now.
Because not every aspect of a system that you think is a problem is a problem for everyone, and since no system will ever be perfect, accepting that sometimes a DM will need to make adjustments is better than switching systems whenever there's something that annoys you.
>>46496308
Because people are fundamentally lazy and like to win arguments on the internet.
Do I need to elaborate further?
>>46496308
Because people will resort to anything as long as they don't have to acknowledge that something they invested into (emotionally, economically, in terms of time) might actually be flawed. Self-denial and Internet echo chambers do that for you.
>>46496308
How do we decide what 'bad' means in this context?
Whether or not any given group thinks that something is 'bad' is entirely subjective. One group may want to change an aspect of something that they consider broken while another group may not.
Therefor, if a certain aspect is easy to houserule out or modify via houserule, it is more flexible. Groups that like it can leave it in place, while groups that dislike it can easily convert it into something else. This is a win-win scenario where an aspect of the game can be judged on flexibility and resistance to alterations.
>>46496308
People have differing opinions, and in a consensual game of pretend the easiest thing to do is to just change the thing that bothers you and keep the rest.
Why throw the baby out with the bathwater, Anon.
>>46496424
Please do. It's rather lazy to state that your argument is correct without actually giving it.
>>46496688
>Whether or not any given group thinks that something is 'bad' is entirely subjective.
Bullshit. There are objective ways to observe any piece of media production, and games fall into that. Literary criticism has been a thing since forever.
Now, personal enjoyment of a thing is another matter. But that doesn't mean that any kind of analysis is meaningless because "bad is subjective".
As always, depends on the system.
Some systems like GURPS are designed as modular toolboxes with different rulesets for different campaign types. Houseruling (even just to say "No books bar basic, full rules") is expected.
With something like DnD, you're expected to use all the RAW, the only flex being splatbooks.
But by all means, ignore nuance and argue as if you're speaking objectively to bumplimit.
>>46496743
Anon, please. I specifically pointed out that it was the subjective opinion of the group as to what constitutes a "good" or "bad" game.
"good" and "bad" are always subjective terms, because you give different levels of value to the objective benchmarks that you're measuring.
>>46496743
That may very well be so, but literary critique of gaming conventions and mechanics is almost never the avenue that people on /tg/ are arguing about.
If you want to examine very specific examples objectively, I would -still- argue that the flexibility of a game's framework is something that can be objectively examined, as I previously stated.
>>46496308
Because by design RPGs have always been toolkits rather than finished games, it's a feature rather than a bug. You can just run something as-is but the expectation is generally that you will exclude some elements you don't care for, tweak others to your liking and even bring in additional rules (either from other materials or created by the group). There's no point in trying to satisfy everyone with one product when they're all going to tear it apart anyway, it would be wasted effort.
Note that this only works in the cases where the complaint is about a smaller facet of a game, like "class X is broken" or "spell Y doesn't capture the flavor mechanically." If someone hates basically every aspect of a system then the correct argument is "find another game entirely" and anyone saying that the DM can just tweak every single rule is probably a moron that doesn't understand why that argument works in the first place.
>>46496772
You are just restating the same thing and you're still wrong.
If a group finds FATAL fun, and can have a good time playing that, good for them. The game is objectively a mess in terms of rules design, and settingwise is good only as a case study about disfunctional behavior (I'm taking the extreme example because I don't want to turn this thread into a quarrel about game X).
>>46496778
Flexibility is indeed a valid point of comparison. Personally I'm more in the camp of "does the game achieve its stated goals", but again, there are many avenues of discussion.
I agree that "muh game is better than ur game" is worthless though.
>>46496826
I was thinking more of Exalted where the mechanics being broken are a "good" thing because that's what the people who play it want, to be styling badasses running off the rules of cool.
Please turn your autism down to a number below ten, thank you.
>>46496826
>does the game achieve its stated goals
This is a very important point of distinction when examining the mechanics of a game and trying to determine if the adaptability of its core mechanics is something that can be used to defend what might otherwise be weak points in the system. Take, for example, some of the more rules-lite OSR variants of AD&D such as DCC or LotFP.
They are created as frameworks for the DM to run his or her preferred game in. There is a necessity to modify them in order to fit the 'theme' of the game that is to be run. As such, the flexibility of the system is something that was intended at their creation, and their ability to be modified by the DM is a positive aspect of their design - it was intended, rather than being something necessary in order to correct an oversight in the design.
Intent vs. need. Does the system NEED to be altered and fixed by the DM, or was it designed to allow this? One is good, one is bad.
>>46496716
Why, that is exactly the essence of my argument.
>>46496619 put it quite aptly already.
It is far easier to say "the GM can fix it" than to admit that a problem exists, even if it does not invalidate your choice of game.
Going full defense is also the easiest way to not lose an argument, forcing a stalemate instead.
>>46496688
Monk and Druid in 3.5, guess which one is "bad".
>>46496857
Except that's not the way the mechanics are broken in Exalted. In 2e, it was 'everyone uses perfect attacks and perfect defences until they run out of motes'.
>>46496872
>the essence of my argument
I was going for witty, but that lame-ass joke may have missed the mark.
>>46496883
We're on the internet.
You can't just take a light jab at something and expect nobody to go on the defensive or throw a counter.
>>46496857
"Broken" does not mean "powerful", it means "not working as expected at all". "Disproportionately(!) powerful" is only part of it.
>>46496881
Different classes with different roles, anon
>>46496930
And why is one of those roles 'useless'?
>>46496930
>different roles
Which the former can't fulfill and the latter oversteps with incredible ease.
>>46496308
It's not
>It's not bad because the GM will fix it.
It's
>Something will always be broken/bad/whatever, and the GM should fix it.
>>46496930
Which Druid can do way better than monk one of them (combat) twice as good thanks to animal companion and wildshape.
Same for other casters, but Druid is the most obvious one.
>>46496963
>Something will always be broken/bad/whatever
True, but there're levels and levels, you can have small easily fixable problems, and then you can have abysmal ones that need to retool the whole system
>>46496881
>Monks are bad
Dank memes
>>46497006
>I have never attempted to do anything with a 3.5e monk ever: the post
Yo, OP here.
I'm not saying "you should acknowledge your game is bad! It is bad because it has this flaw!"
I'm saying "when a mechanic or rule is bad or broken, you should admit that it is so".
>>46497132
To most people, there is no difference between the two.
>>46497167
Every game is flawed. Even my favourite game has flaws.
That said, some games have fewer flaws than others.
Even so, when I say my favourite game, I mention that it has some flaws, and what needs to be done to fix and get around them. I don't ignore them or pretend they don't exist or try to convince people they're imagining things.
>>46497315
Good for you, but you're an outlier in that regard.
>>46497453
I dont think that's an outlier opinion. My 'pet system' has plenty of shortcomings and flaws. I've got a playerbase of like 15 people, none of them I think would disagree that their favourite systems have serious issues.
It's just on 4chan people shitpost and argue.
>>46497475
Not just 4chan. You'll STILL find people, even on the best of boards (whatever you define best to be) and in gaming shops, who will say "there's nothing wrong with System X because the GM can just do Y".
>>46496743
If you think literary criticism is objective you clearly don't read extensively or have ever actually studied English to any degree. Large amounts of "classics" weren't received well when released. Others were overshadowed by more "traditional" releases. Don't even get me started on poetry. Fucking poetry critics
...
Anyway, you're telling me that somehow we can objectively agree on how good a role playing game is, which are very subjective experiences depending on the group, when novels, a fairly set experience, are often judged by how important they were to other, later authors because of how hard it is to accurately judge a book's worth?
You're a fucking moron OP
>>46496340
Why did this thread even need any other posts past this one?
>>46496340
Unless you have to make so many changes using another system becomes the leaser problem
>>46497578
Because the "3.5 is bad!" babies needed to express their opinions
>>46497041
OK, 25 point buy, core only, 1st level, let's see who's better.
>>46497677
We're talking about systems you sometimes need to adjust, not ones you always do.
>>46497697
The druid.
>>46497568
>If you think literary criticism is objective you clearly don't read extensively or have ever actually studied English to any degree. Large amounts of "classics" weren't received well when released. Others were overshadowed by more "traditional" releases. Don't even get me started on poetry. Fucking poetry critics
Oh god you are an idiot. First of all narratology is a thing, look it up. Secondly, while there is no universally agreed upon standard for literary criticism, the different schools of thought argue about something that goes beyond "me like thing".
"criticism means nothing because it's all subjective opinions" is the most plebeian stance one could take.
>>46497578
Because that's wrong.
>>46497814
>it absolutely and utterly deflates all my bitching, so I have to say it's wrong in order to keep bitching
Stop being so transparent.
>>46496340
This, great amount of 3.PF players and GMs think casters being better is ok because magic, doesn't have to explain shit. So what's a problem for some people it isn't for the rest
>>46496340
So true. A perfect system is impossible to make and having to make few house rules for something to make it fun doesn't mean that the system is shit.
Shit system that are unplayable without reinventing them as a whole are exception of course, but those are relatively rare.
>>46497697
The Monk can punch a man twice at +2 toHit for 1d6+4 each time. The Druid has a pet wolf (attacking at +3 for 1d6+1) and can drop Entangle and Summon Nature's Ally 1 for another wofl to fuck with everything the Monk wants to do forever. It's 3v1, and the Monk is CC'd
>>46498168
Wolf nothing, just use a riding dog, it's borderline impossible for the Monk to actually beat the damn thing because its AC and durability crush a STR optimized Monk's hands down. Slap some cheap barding on it and it's literally got 13 HP and 18 AC at level 1 and hits like a wolf with the free trip but harder. What the fuck is a Monk going to do about that?
>>46496308
Because we play role playing games, not just boardgames.
>>46496308
It is sometimes applicable for systems with SMALL amount of cracks that the GM can easily mend.
Shit like D&D or Exalted are not one of them, of course, and anybody applying it is just dumb.
>>46498452
I like how many neckbeards pull the "balance is for boardgames/videogames" card when even AD&D 1e was talking about adjusting intraparty class balance.
>>46498657
AD&D 1E nothing, Gygax was talking about it in the mid 70s.
>>46498691
He was also writing AD&D in the mid 70s.
>>46497578
Because this is a bait thread.
>>46496308
Because a car isn't broken if the ashtray is busted and you have to use a work around.
If one of the rear doors can only be opened from the outside, the car is not broken.
At some point, the car is actually too broken to be worth going through the trouble to actually use it.
The problem is that this is a sliding scale and everyone draws the line at a different point, making it a subjective point.
A game is not broken if one of it's features sucks, just like a car isn't broken if a window won't work.I love AD&D and am well aware that THACO is stupid.
But if part of a game is broken as a door that won't open, then the anon claiming the door isn't broken because you can climb through the window?
That's just called desperation.
>>46496308
This is the "Oberoni Fallacy," that something is not broken if something can conceivably be fixed. It's both internally contradictory and misses the point that it shouldn't have to be done in the first place.
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy
>>46496340
Well, that was brief.
>>46496340
OP never claimed that switching systems was necessary, just that acknowledging flaws was necessary.
>>46502087
Most DnD3e and 5e players are desperate, I suppose.
It fits.
