PDA

View Full Version : Breaking the game. Why?



Debbie_D
2012-05-09, 07:59 PM
Right off the bat, I have to say Im new to D&D, having been introduced to it by Mikela and this board. One of the things I see in recruitment threads and in games is an attempt to break the game, and for the life of me, I dont understand why someone would do that. I mean, its almost a non-verbal way of saying "I hate D&D and I'm not going to let you play either". Its completely rude to people who work at making playable PCs, and its rude to the DM who has worked hard to figure out an interesting story line, and you just want to trash it completely by making nothing able to challenge your character. It never ends up well, the game is doomed to end after 2-3 pages and it just makes for hard feelings all around. What is the attraction? Sure, you want to be strong, but you know damn well when you are crossing the line and still people do it?

Righteous Doggy
2012-05-09, 08:04 PM
I have a friend who LOVES to break a game any chance he gets. He immidiately sells his soul for power, he throws any train of its tracks, and almost no DM can handle him well becuase he's probably insane. He does it becuase this is his entertainment, and this is the way he likes to do things. The only way to keep him from doing it is to shut him down the moment he tries anything. He does it... because we let him :/.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-09, 08:05 PM
People are selfish and will only think of themselves unless moved by social pressure, manipulation or empathy for their fellows. Fail to procure any of these and you will end up with someone who breaks the game to feel superior to everyone else and "win" the game.

SilverClawShift
2012-05-09, 08:10 PM
Games are like living creatures, just like people. And like people, sometimes breaking them shows you how much more fun they can be. And sometimes breaking them renders them a useless mess.

But the only way to find out which is which is to try it!

Debbie_D
2012-05-09, 08:32 PM
People are selfish and will only think of themselves unless moved by social pressure, manipulation or empathy for their fellows. Fail to procure any of these and you will end up with someone who breaks the game to feel superior to everyone else and "win" the game.

But you cant "win" this game...and if the game ends, how can you consider it "won"?

Vladislav
2012-05-09, 08:34 PM
Breaking the game is subjective. One player may think that, having a pumped up Diplomacy skill he's roleplaying well, resolving social encounters, etc. Another may think, damn, he's breaking the game making everyone like him with his goddamned Diplomacy.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-09, 08:34 PM
But you cant "win" this game...and if the game ends, how can you consider it "won"?

The same way you win a fight: when your opponent's battered body is twitching in the ground under your boot. That doesn't make it moral or wholesome or good, but it is a winning criteria, albeit a twisted one.

jindra34
2012-05-09, 08:42 PM
But you cant "win" this game...and if the game ends, how can you consider it "won"?

Most people who try to break the game have some personal concept of what 'winning' is. What it is, why they think its 'winning', and why they think they can 'win' boggles my mind.

Knaight
2012-05-09, 09:05 PM
Most people who try to break the game have some personal concept of what 'winning' is. What it is, why they think its 'winning', and why they think they can 'win' boggles my mind.

I don't buy this. Most people break the game to better understand it, and because doing so is fun. The only time winning comes in is when people break the game when other people are trying to play the game, which is where it gets obnoxious. Generally speaking though, it's done with character building, with characters not meant to be played.

Andreaz
2012-05-09, 09:12 PM
Generally "invitations to break games" are merely intellectual exercises. Attempting to see how far the rules let you go. These people usually indulge so they can tell what works, what doesn't work, and what shouldn't work. This is a good thing, as it allows you to judge better what works and what doesn't in your actual games.


Now, people who actively disrupt a game...These are just trolls. Set them on fire and carry on.

nedz
2012-05-09, 09:21 PM
Because its there.

Working out how to break a game is an intellectual challange, like hacking.

It is also an essential skill to know if you are thinking about DMing, mainly so it doesn't happen accidentally.

Now to deliberately break a game, as a player, is another matter. There can be any number of reasons for this, mainly because it seems funny.

It is also possible for a player to break many games accidentally.

JoshuaZ
2012-05-10, 12:55 AM
I'm not completely sure what constitutes breaking a game. Sometimes it means simply doing something that is in-character but utterly unexpected by the GM. Sometimes it is people being too "munchinkinny". This last is particularly unclear to me. If one is using some build that requires 10 splat books that you picked up on the internet and allows your to destroy armies of characters with twice as many levels as you, you are probably breaking the game. At the same time, it is a lot easier to roleplay a powerful wizard when one actually is a powerful wizard, and some people just have good instincts and thoughts about what sort of thing works well. The first time I was in a 3.5 campaign I made a battlefield control wizard without having ever heard the term before. It was just clear looking at the rules that that's what a smart wizard would do. I was probably a bit more effective than the DM expected. Is that breaking the game?

In order to ask this question one really needs a clear idea of what one means by breaking the game.

Scowling Dragon
2012-05-10, 04:02 AM
Mostly because their jerks. There are excuses (That are all rubbish) but mostly its jerkish to ruin games for others.

Suddo
2012-05-10, 04:26 AM
Breaking the game comes in many ways.
If the DM is asking for it he's more asking for a stress test of his module.
If a player does it it can be in a variety of ways:
1) Stupid all out cheese, see Pun-Pun.
2) Playing powerful characters powerfully. This isn't so much as cheesing as breaking the original design of things. If a Cleric makes the fighter obsolete until about the 6th encounter of the day the game is broken because the fighter doesn't have fun. If the wizard teleports to the top of the tower grabs the prize and teleports out before anything can happen this breaks the entire dungeon due to the fact the wizard was able to use his tools wisely. This isn't so much breaking the game but showing its huge flaws. This can be done without optimization and by someone with little to no system mastery.

Elfinor
2012-05-10, 07:12 AM
Games are like living creatures, just like people. And like people, sometimes breaking them shows you how much more fun they can be. And sometimes breaking them renders them a useless mess.

But the only way to find out which is which is to try it! I would imagine that if you break a person, you'd want to discuss it with them first; not just 'try it'!:smalleek:

I suppose you also should discuss things with the people involved before breaking a game, although it doesn't (usually) have the same potential for emotional damage:smalltongue:

Comet
2012-05-10, 09:07 AM
Roleplaying games attract math nerds. Math nerds like to explore the system and put it to imaginative use, perhaps "breaking" it in the progress. This is all right, so long as the math nerds and the story nerds can come to a solution around the table that allows everyone to have their fun.

Roleplaying games also often attract socially awkward nerds. If these socially awkward nerds also happen to be math nerds, the group might have a problem since these awkward math nerds don't know how to talk to the story nerds across the table and instead dive deeper into the mechanics and have their fun with it without considering how they might be ruining the fun for the story nerds.

Socially awkward story nerds have their own ways of breaking the game, for sure, but math nerds tend to have an easier time of it since they can just point to the rules as they are written and say they've done nothing wrong.

Breaking the game is not in itself a problem. Being unable to talk to the players around you and come to a consensus on what would be the most fun kind of game for everyone involved is a huge problem.

Welknair
2012-05-10, 09:32 AM
Short Version: They take it as a challenge.

Fatebreaker
2012-05-10, 09:39 AM
Right off the bat, I have to say Im new to D&D, having been introduced to it by Mikela and this board. One of the things I see in recruitment threads and in games is an attempt to break the game, and for the life of me, I dont understand why someone would do that. I mean, its almost a non-verbal way of saying "I hate D&D and I'm not going to let you play either". Its completely rude to people who work at making playable PCs, and its rude to the DM who has worked hard to figure out an interesting story line, and you just want to trash it completely by making nothing able to challenge your character. It never ends up well, the game is doomed to end after 2-3 pages and it just makes for hard feelings all around. What is the attraction? Sure, you want to be strong, but you know damn well when you are crossing the line and still people do it?

Well, there's no straight answer to your question, largely because what "breaks" a game is both subjective and relative.

As for why people do it? Here are few of the more common reasons I've seen in myself and others...

"I didn't mean to!"
Ah, the accidental breakage. So, you're flipping through your sourcebooks, when this really cool idea hits. Maybe you were inspired by something from the artwork or a neat little short story. Maybe you liked the idea of a class and decided to give it a whirl. So you take your cool idea and you run with it. You build your character, you're all excited, and at the next session, you bring out Coolguy McAwesomeson to great delight from your fellow players. The dice start rolling, and things go well. Too well. After an hour or two of showing up everyone else at the table, you retire Coolguy McAwesomeson and nobody ever speaks of it again.

This is actually kind of easy, depending on the system. You stumble onto a really effective combination and accidentally break the game. This can easily be a "no harm, no foul" moment in isolation, but if it happens too often, you may be moving towards...


"That's what the system encourages!"
So you've figured out what makes the system tick (...maybe). You see with eyes unclouded, and what you see is that the mechanics of the game encourage a certain playstyle to successfully overcome certain kinds of challenges. Whether consciously or unintentionally, you see how the pieces fit together and you see how to mechanically achieve your character concept and goals.

This is where a major part of relativity between players comes in. If your ideas of how the system works don't mesh with those of your fellow players, you're likely to run into conflict (even if you're right!). Expect for different expectations of mechanics and roleplaying to cloud the issue.

For example, imagine a game where killing people is always better than talking to them. You get 100 points for killing someone, and 50 points for talking to them (and you cannot get points from someone twice; so no talking to them twice to get 100 points, or talking and then killing to get 150, or any other combination -- just 100 points or 50 points!). Of course you become a mass-murderer. You get more points that way! And points are good! Therefore, murder is good!

So your friends talk to people, while you kill people, and you rapidly find yourself twice as powerful as they are. Did you "break" the system? Or did you just play the game the system encourages?

And if you keep going down that rabbit hole, you might someday end up as someone who...


"I will now poke this honey badger with a stick. For science."
For some players, there is a game outside of the game. All that sitting around a table and rolling dice is fun and all, but the real game for them is learning how the system works. What are the stress points? Where is the game balanced, and how? How do the mechanics interact with one another? What subsystems work, and which subsystems don't? Does the game function as it claims it does?

So you've asked yourself, "What can I do with the system?" and you're determined to find out. A lot of breakage comes from here, and here it's a good thing. You experiment and theorycraft, and you're happy when you get results, good or bad, because the point was to learn. Loopholes are exciting challenges. Exploits are possibilities. Maybe you'd never use them, but you do want to know how you could.

You try not to pull out your more powerful tricks with your friends, because they really don't like that sort of thing, but sometimes it just happens. And, sadly, not everyone can intentionally scale their game to match their teammates, and some folks don't even want to, which leads to...


"Screw you guys, I have the rules!"
You're just following the rules, is all. Why can't they see that? It's not cheating. It's clear as day. The rules say you can do it!

This is the problem personality. It says that everyone else at the table is secondary to your fun, and your fun depends on straining the rules to the breaking point and then applying just the right pressure...

--

Now, for the sake of a semi-narrative, I've ordered these in a structure which is entirely possible, but not inherent. Sure, I've seen players stumble into success, only to learn a little bit and outpace their friends, which encourages them to delve more and more into the system to understand how to play alongside rather than against their friends, only to wind up totally alienated with only the rules to comfort them as they (presumably) cry to sleep at night. But that's not a hard-and-fast narrative, and plenty of folks get to different points in that story without necessarily reaching the others.

There's also another point to consider, and that is how we all have different definitions of what "breaks" a game. You do. I do. He does. She does. Your friends disagree with my friends, and both of them disagree with that one dude and his friends. And different systems have different definitions of breakage, too. A style of play which is overpowered at your table might be underpowered at mine -- say, a god-king whose every word ensnares his audience would break your social intrigue game, but it's not very effective in my zombie apocalypse game, since the zombies can't understand him!

Breaking the system doesn't require you to be a jerk. Sometimes it's the personality of an explorer, a scientist, or a daredevil. The guy who wants to know what possibilities exist over the horizon, the guy who wants to combine different elements to see how the mix, and the guy who isn't afraid to try new things can all be positive personalities at your table. The player who understands the ins and outs of the system can be a great boon at helping less-experienced players mechanically realize their character concept. The player who knows the rules can help save time flipping through sourcebooks to double check how some obscure combination of conditions works out. So long as everyone communicates and understands the social rules by which you agree to play, you can work through the odd gamebreaker.

But the jerk? He's not a jerk because of how he uses the rules to get ahead. It's the other way 'round. He uses the rules to get ahead because he's a jerk!

The moral of the story is, don't play with jerks.

Decatus
2012-05-10, 11:16 AM
I wish I had something to add, but Fatebreaker did an excellent job in his summation of the different ways a game can be broken. Just....read his post.

Personally, I find that most games break when the players don't all have the same sort of expectations. IMO, communication is key in avoiding this all too common pitfall.

Partysan
2012-05-10, 11:29 AM
Adding one more to Fatebreaker's collection

"You made me do it!"
Do you remember when you were a teenager and had a fight with your parents and you talked back in a firm voice, eliciting a "DON'T YOU YELL AT ME/US!", when you didn't actually yell at them but they did at you? And at that point you felt the unimaginable urge to yell back for real and show them how it sounds when you actually yell?
This can also happen at the table, when a player is accused of powergaming with a characte rthat isn't actually that powerful, and sometimes there are other characters who are more powerful than his, yet he gets attacked and they are not. The player feels slighted, unjustly punished and innocently provoked and decides to retire the character (or maybe it was retired forcefully) and make a new one that shows which classes are actually broken and how powergaming really looks like.
Sometimes they are in the right, sometimes they just feel they are, but in any case their game was destroyed and they will take revenge by breaking the game for everyone else.

You see requests for those popping up at the boards every few weeks, happens all the time at the tables. Sometimes there's also advice to that direction ("Your DM thinks X is overpowered? Make a Druid/Wizard'/Cleric and show hom what that word really means!")

Snowbluff
2012-05-10, 11:34 AM
I don't buy this. Most people break the game to better understand it, and because doing so is fun. The only time winning comes in is when people break the game when other people are trying to play the game, which is where it gets obnoxious. Generally speaking though, it's done with character building, with characters not meant to be played.

This. Further understanding of the game is something I constantly strive for. I have a natural need for competition in my life, and learning more about something so I can help others compete with me in game is something I end up doing more than I care to admit. :smalltongue:

Hiro Protagonest
2012-05-10, 12:12 PM
Sometimes there's also advice to that direction ("Your DM thinks X is overpowered? Make a Druid/Wizard'/Cleric and show hom what that word really means!")

I sometimes do that. Except I prefer a more subtle approach. AKA, team players. DM thinks monks are overpowered and bards are completely weaksauce? Say hello to my Song of the Heart/DFI/Words of Creation bard. As for the more general "DM thinks your monk is overpowered", I suggest a GOD wizard, where you can say "what? Me? I was just back here helping the others!".

Fatebreaker
2012-05-10, 12:17 PM
Adding one more to Fatebreaker's collection

"You made me do it!"
-snip-

Ouch, that's a nasty one. I think the worst part about it is that it exposes how something has gone fundamentally wrong in the group dynamic.

Averis Vol
2012-05-10, 12:30 PM
Adding one more to Fatebreaker's collection

"You made me do it!"
Do you remember when you were a teenager and had a fight with your parents and you talked back in a firm voice, eliciting a "DON'T YOU YELL AT ME/US!", when you didn't actually yell at them but they did at you? And at that point you felt the unimaginable urge to yell back for real and show them how it sounds when you actually yell?
This can also happen at the table, when a player is accused of powergaming with a characte rthat isn't actually that powerful, and sometimes there are other characters who are more powerful than his, yet he gets attacked and they are not. The player feels slighted, unjustly punished and innocently provoked and decides to retire the character (or maybe it was retired forcefully) and make a new one that shows which classes are actually broken and how powergaming really looks like.
Sometimes they are in the right, sometimes they just feel they are, but in any case their game was destroyed and they will take revenge by breaking the game for everyone else.

You see requests for those popping up at the boards every few weeks, happens all the time at the tables. Sometimes there's also advice to that direction ("Your DM thinks X is overpowered? Make a Druid/Wizard'/Cleric and show hom what that word really means!")

i'v actually done this one. i learned my lesson though, i felt like crap when i looked up from my sheet and i was the only one smiling.

basically it came down to my DM shutting down EVERYTHING i wanted to do and heavily favoring two characters (can anyone say +11 weapon at level 10?) so i said enough and built clericzilla and proceeded to destroy his CR 17 encounter we were supposed to run away from. and to really drive it home i literally broke his dungeon in two and sent it to the bottom of the ocean. so yea, i'v been on this side, and i can't find anything fun about breaking the game, its a sour feeling.

Lord_Gareth
2012-05-10, 12:31 PM
Ouch, that's a nasty one. I think the worst part about it is that it exposes how something has gone fundamentally wrong in the group dynamic.

Sometimes, though, it can be the only way to resolve the argument. Mind you, the two times I actually did it the DM was literally, point-blank asking for it, so I may be biased, but a demonstration of your point can often work wonders.

Fatebreaker
2012-05-10, 01:07 PM
Sometimes, though, it can be the only way to resolve the argument. Mind you, the two times I actually did it the DM was literally, point-blank asking for it, so I may be biased, but a demonstration of your point can often work wonders.

Oh, I'm not saying it can't be called for. Just that if you've reached the point of breaking the game out of spite, there are underlying problems which should be addressed. Clashes of perception, clashes of expectations, clashes of rules comprehension, clashes of personality, clashes of communication, all that sort of thing. Y'know, stuff that causes problems regardless of any game breakage.

Yours sounds like a special case, though. Was the DM trying to stress-test his game, or was he literally daring you to break it as some sort of social posturing?

Lord_Gareth
2012-05-10, 01:11 PM
Oh, I'm not saying it can't be called for. Just that if you've reached the point of breaking the game out of spite, there are underlying problems which should be addressed. Clashes of perception, clashes of expectations, clashes of rules comprehension, clashes of personality, clashes of communication, all that sort of thing. Y'know, stuff that causes problems regardless of any game breakage.

Yours sounds like a special case, though. Was the DM trying to stress-test his game, or was he literally daring you to break it as some sort of social posturing?

"No way, monks are totally broken. Look at those saves! Tell you what, we'll do an arena, you build the wizard."

"There's no way a Cleric could stand up to primary melee, let's do an arena."

After that I was DMing and I was able to more gently introduce my players to the realities of 3.5.

Lord_Gareth
2012-05-10, 01:25 PM
Incidentally, my group kinda has a thing for demonstrating points about class balance and/or power through arenas. In the spoiler below is the saga of The Martini Wizard, and how my players finally learned to believe me about the power levels of Wizards and their place on the Tier System:


I had my player start at level 27 once, in an effort to visibly demonstrate the tier system to them. They fought a 17th level (20th level experience, crafted three levels away) wizard/initiate of the sevenfold veil. It was eight on one. The wizard spent every single standard action he had for the fight drinking martinis.

He killed them all.


The group was:

Monk 27 (The Inscrutable Master Girard): Built for kama use. Convinced that Monks were powerful caster-killers due to all-good saves and spell resistance. Smacked into a violet warding and failed his save, resulting in his transportation to Avernus.

Fighter 17/Kensai 10 (The Duke of Truth and Loss): TWF, convinced his sheer number of attacks > any enemy. Espoused that fighters are versatile due to their many feats. Killed by summoned balor.

Wizard 27 (Kratos): Evocation specialist, banned conjuration and abjuration. Didn't understand why blasting is sub-optimal. Killed by summoned balor.

Swordsage 20/Master of Nine 5/Rogue 2: Focused on Shadow Hand and Diamond Mind, fought with a greatsword. Fairly competent, was tragically killed by a summoned balor.

Bard 27: Tried being a buffamancer, got taken out by a warding that turned him to stone when he tried to charge the wizard.

Cleric 27: Priest of Elhonna, memorized healing spells and summons. Called several animals to the battlefield (that couldn't penetrate the wardings) before being taken out by the summoned balor.

Hexblade 27: "It's magic AND melee, man! You can't beat that!" Except the balor did, to the merry tune of the mage drinking martinis.

Compwar Ex-Samurai 17/Ronin 10: "Class flavor and mechanics aren't separate, man! If you wanna be a samurai you should just play one!" Sadly found that even the fighter did better. Killed by summoned balor.

Noticing a theme here?


Party opted for three rounds of 'buff time'. Wizard used a scroll of delayed Gate, a protection from evil and the spell to conjure his lawn chair into his bag of holding during this time. Spent the whole fight sitting in said lawn chair, drinking martinis and occasionally hitting his 'no' button until the balor showed up.

Note that these posts are missing some small amount of context from folks in the other thread asking me for clarifications.

Fatebreaker
2012-05-10, 01:35 PM
*chuckle* Now that's a good read. I think that falls more under a teaching moment than a spiteful moment, which I believe was Partysan's point. It's a good example of yet another reason why folks break a game.

"You guys made me do it!" vs. "Don't believe me? Watch this!"

I'd pay good money to watch your party fall apart against the martini wizard.

Gavinfoxx
2012-05-10, 04:26 PM
You HAVE to go into an extreme amount of detail about that Martini Wizard fight!! Wow. I TOTALLY want to read that...

Jay R
2012-05-10, 04:52 PM
Roleplaying games attract math nerds. Math nerds like to explore the system and put it to imaginative use, perhaps "breaking" it in the progress. This is all right, so long as the math nerds and the story nerds can come to a solution around the table that allows everyone to have their fun.

Because I am a math nerd, I play with systems to find out waht an optimized character is.

Because I am not also a jerk, I do not play these characters.

Lord_Gareth
2012-05-10, 04:54 PM
You HAVE to go into an extreme amount of detail about that Martini Wizard fight!! Wow. I TOTALLY want to read that...

If you want a blow-by-blow with mechanics, that I cannot give you. I could write up a snippet for it in the appropriate thread if you like.

Gavinfoxx
2012-05-10, 04:58 PM
If you want a blow-by-blow with mechanics, that I cannot give you. I could write up a snippet for it in the appropriate thread if you like.

Yes please! Could you go into as much detail as you can in a 'The story of the Martini Wizard' thread or something?

Ason
2012-05-10, 06:56 PM
It seems to me that there are also varying levels of breaking the game. Pun-Pun (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98756)'s unlimited power is so broken that I've never seen or heard of it actually being used. Beholder Mages (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223659) are powerful but not infinitely so, and they often come up when my gaming group hosts a "players try to break the system; DM tries to murder the PCs" one-off event.

Even less powerful but still potentially imbalanced are things like a Pathfinder Paladin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin)//Synthesist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner/archetypes/paizo---summoner-archetypes/synthesist) Summoner (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner) gestalt, which only needs Charisma and Constitution to excel and is a combat machine with very strong out of combat abilities. I threw that down once for a brief two-person adventure, and I felt awful the next day for effectively making the other player useless with it. Highly optimized wizards would also fall into this category of "not truly illegal but can definitely kill others' fun". Heck, even a mildly well-played wizard can spoil things for others; it's something I didn't expect back in the day and for which I now try to watch out.

Personally, while I enjoy the mental exercise of optimization, I hate making anyone feel left out. That's sort of why I made a personal vow to make all my future PCs out of tier 3 (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0) classes or below [save for DM or group request]. It lets me get my optimization kicks in, but even at my best, I'm still a supporting character who works best in and through the group. Breaking the game is just no fun, even if you do it accidentally.

It's like the saying that floats around some of the signatures on this board [which I will now butcher- anyone have the real one?]: "A newbie can play a fighter. A veteran can play a wizard. A true player knows how to play a wizard but plays a fighter anyways."

nedz
2012-05-11, 02:22 PM
Yes please! Could you go into as much detail as you can in a 'The story of the Martini Wizard' thread or something?

No no, all we are really interested in is: was it shaken or stirred ?
Oh and how did your Wizard make their martinis ?

Fatebreaker
2012-05-11, 02:32 PM
Oh and how did your Wizard make their martinis ?

What, you never learned the Summon Martini spell?

Jay R
2012-05-11, 08:18 PM
No no, all we are really interested in is: was it shaken or stirred ?

Regular martinis should be stirred; vodka martinis should be shaken. (It actually makes a difference.)


Oh and how did your Wizard make their martinis?

In advance, I would guess. Sometimes potion bottles carry other things than potions.

TheOOB
2012-05-12, 12:38 AM
Different people play the game for different reasons. Robin's Guide to Good Gamemastering separates players in the following categories(doing this from memory):

Power Gamers want to play a strong powerful character

Butt-Kickers just want to fight

Storytellers want to be part of a story

Method Actors want to act

Tacticians want to win

Specialists want to play a specific type of character

Casual Gamers just want to hang out.

People who are "breaking" the game are most likely either Power Gamers, or more likely, Tacticians. A Tactician will use any advantage to achieve victory. An anti-climatic ending where they ruin the GM's plans is the best kind of ending for them.

It's not wrong, it's just what some people are looking for. Let them have it sometimes, but not all the time.

Adindra
2012-05-12, 01:19 AM
having been guilty of breaking a game before ill put in my 2 cp


whenever i break a game its because i have 0 exp with the class im playing (in d&d anyway)

having never played something makes it alot harder to judge off hand if somethings going to be too much and because i like to build characters i do alot of research and figure out decent builds to use in game (which causes the players who don't do that as much to complain but i always give advice when i can)

however i will say that upon experience with a class or a build it does help put it into perspective strength wise and adjust accordingly

Acanous
2012-05-12, 05:24 AM
Different people play the game for different reasons. Robin's Guide to Good Gamemastering separates players in the following categories(doing this from memory):

Power Gamers want to play a strong powerful character

Butt-Kickers just want to fight

Storytellers want to be part of a story

Method Actors want to act

Tacticians want to win

Specialists want to play a specific type of character

Casual Gamers just want to hang out.

People who are "breaking" the game are most likely either Power Gamers, or more likely, Tacticians. A Tactician will use any advantage to achieve victory. An anti-climatic ending where they ruin the GM's plans is the best kind of ending for them.

It's not wrong, it's just what some people are looking for. Let them have it sometimes, but not all the time.

http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg

I don't try to break the game, but if you give me a scenerio with defined victory conditions, I will do my best to achieve those conditions as efficiently as possible, with a minimum of loss.

If that means we bypassed the dungeon by teleporting into the badguy's chambers by scrying on the mcguffin, then hit him with a Flesh to Stone because casters traditionally have crappy fort saves, then that's what happened.
If you spent a while on the dungeon and didn't want it to be bypassed, just put the objective in the dungeon. Make it so we can't port to it for good reasons.
Heck, we never went into the dungeon, so your work isn't *Wasted*, just use it for the next adventure.

Kind of like when a PC dies, and the player has to roll up a new one, is how I view it when I kill the adventure by playing smart.

A recent example:
In our Pathfinder game, my wizard knew we were going to be fighting undead. So I memorized Undeath to Death six times, control undead a few times, Hide from undead, Invisibility Sphere, and Fly. Contingeancy: Teleport (To safe location a hundred miles away) if my life is ever in danger.


Spent the entire dungeon flying around invisible, dropping Undeath to Death whenever we'd go through a room with mooks. Eventually, the DM had us hit a Wall of Force, so I antimagic field so we can all walk through. I figure "Hey, that's a smart plan for forcing us to drop invisibility and fly, he could put an encounter right here!"

but he instead had there be nothing of intrest behind the wall "It's not ready yet!" and forced us to carry on the other direction. For the boss encounter, our invisibility just "Shuts off". No trap, no trigger, badguy wasn't aware of us, we weren't coming in the obvious way. Just shut off because "The encounter wouldn't work if he can't see you". For that encounter, the skeletal minions had 20HD, just so Undeath to Death couldn't dust 'em.

now, I like the DM, I like the party, but seriously, if it was me? I'd reward creative thinking, the bad guy would have cut his losses and retreated to his panic room as soon as he realised he had to fight other high-level wizards, and there would have been a trapped room full of treasure behind that wall of force, if I wasn't ready and the players got there anyhow.

The game, in truth, cannot be broken so long as you're playing with living people who can adapt. Weather or not it is FUN requires that you play the KIND of game your group enjoys. Me? I see D&D combat as a puzzle to be solved, not a fight. You might see it differently.

Socratov
2012-05-12, 06:32 AM
Regular martinis should be stirred; vodka martinis should be shaken. (It actually makes a difference.)



In advance, I would guess. Sometimes potion bottles carry other things than potions.

Well, I actually shake my gin-martini, (yes it dies make a diference and it's up to taste), and yes the summon martini or unseen servant (crafting martini dc?) would work wonders for that.

Crasical
2012-05-12, 08:16 AM
For some reason I keep picturing the 'You made me do this!' type of game-breaking as being some nerd breaking out in a battle aura of maths and shouting "WITNESS TRUE POWER!" as they whip out their Wizard/Incantatrix/Io7V character sheet.

Granted, I'm probably guilty of reaching at least the 'For science.' stage of the game. I can't barely create a character without referencing a char-op guide these days, even when I usually end up disregarding half their advice. And I'm infamous for bringing ridiculous things you can do to the table, to the point that everyone groans when I launch into a tangent of 'Were-tyrannosaurs are a thing!' 'You can make a perform:Sexual-powered sorcerer!' 'I CAN PARRY THE MOON.' 'then unleash the voodoo rave!' 'it's a Deva-halo-made-of-swords ghost!'

Sometimes the look on your party member's face when you explain that you where bitten by a strange creature and now on the night of the full moon you turn into a camel is much more satisfying than being powerful.

Golden Ladybug
2012-05-12, 10:32 PM
"Breaking" the game is subjective. In most campaigns, Triple 9ths, +200 to every d20 roll and the ability to blot out the sun with arrows as a standard action is too much.

But when me and my group decided to kick back and have a silly campaign where we fought Beholder Mages, the Holy Awakened Tarrasque and Imhotep rolling around the battlefield encased in N1 Prismatic Spheres, that was just what we played.

I've seen people complain about a level 1 Character with +9 to hit, and I've seen people get up in arms about DMM: Persist Clerics. There is no baseline for Optimisation, and while I enjoy and encourage it, not everyone else I've played with has.

That said, there are situations when the game is "broken" by a player, and there are a few reasons for this (most of them have already been mentioned).

One that happens quite commonly is that a player wants bigger numbers. Their numbers, as they are right now, are insufficient. So, they look through their books, or ask the internet, to help them make their numbers large enough to satisfy.

And, when they show up to game, it becomes that their numbers are too big. That Ubercharger build they found, or devised, just doesn't fit in with the Dagger Wielding Rogue, Healbot Cleric and Fireball Slinging Wizard.

This isn't something done out of maliciousness, and indeed, most of the time breaking the game isn't. Its just one player building to an optimisation level that is higher than everyone else.

Then, sometimes, one player stumbles upon a combination of spells, or a favourable interaction between class features, and suddenly they've got dual 9ths, an arbitrary strength score and more spell slots than can be counted by any mortal. This can be entirely accidental, and mostly this can be repaired by the player just retiring the character and trying again. This can be as complicated as building Muscle Wizard, as simple as choosing a Fleshraker as their animal companion (Dinosaurs are awesome, and I can get this one really early! How cool is that!), or even just being the first player to decide that a prestige class would really help make their character better.

But, of course, it isn't always like that. Sometimes, a Player feels like they have been slighted. Their Archer who could make four attacks when everyone else was only making one was forcefully retired, because it was TOO OP!!!1!!eleventy-one!! and now, they're mad. They worked hard on that character, and they were really enjoying the game. So, they decide to take it out on the rest of the group.

And thats when they start bringing in Kobolds who cast as Wizards 5 levels above their actual level, or Half-Elves who can make anyone they even glance at bow at their feet and pledge their lives in their service, or Gnomes who can emulate the power of the gods themselves.

And, sometimes, "breaking" the game is done simply to see where it can be broken, for Science. I don't see any problems with this.

But yeah, in the end, it ends up being a case of who you're playing with, and the expectations at the table. One group's cheese is simply how you play for another group.

In summary, its all a bit of a crapshoot.

Kalirren
2012-05-12, 11:10 PM
As you well know, Debbie, I speak the D&D system language very poorly. My first DM didn't like splatbooks at all. On various occasions I've actually been accused of "breaking the game" by making mechanically ineffective characters and forcing others to carry all the weight of the party's combat effectiveness before. Other people were having less fun because for them, I wasn't pulling my share of ownage.

Maybe this is just the thought of someone used to freeform, but in general, for me the system (and not just D&D, but any system) is -already- broken. I feel no need to go out and break the game. The game is a collaborative group effort to salvage what meaning you can get from your session time under the auspices of a flawed system.

Any modus ponens is a modus tollens, so I imagine their thought process was that since they had some sort of idea of how the system "worked," they played to that standard. I wasn't doing that at all. And when power level standards conflict, the people who have those standards have less fun.

So I guess I'd redirect the problem to the people who have expectations about the game and the game world that are derived from system, rather than the other way around.

GolemsVoice
2012-05-13, 12:43 PM
I'd also say that there are three ways of "breaking" a game, let's assume D&D.

First, the merely theoretical, where people work out the most effective, powerful or even just silly combination of race, class(es), feats and so on. These are done for fun and for the challenge, mostly, and nobody seriously expects to play these often frankensteinian monsters of asburd combinations.

Second, involuntary breaking. As Golden Ladybug pointed out, sometimes you stumble upon a combination that just synergizes very well. You may not be as powerful as a character planned for breaking from level 1-20, but you're very very good. Mostly, this is borne out of the player's desire to either have cool things, or just be good at the game, without realizing that what he takes is TOO powerful.

Third, the voluntary breaking. The player decides that he just has to be the most powerful not only in relation to the monsters and his fellow characters (since a moderately optimized character is often more powerful than a poorly optimized), but in general, even at the expense of everyone else. I'd say that here, being more or less powerful enough to be invulnerable is one of the main motivations. Or maliciousness, in some cases.

And, as Golden Ladybug said, what is breaking the game might depend on the situation and the expectations of the players. A moderately optimized character can sometimes run havoc in a campaign with poor optimizers, especially if the DM has tailored the campaign to a low powerlevel.

Sutremaine
2012-05-13, 03:26 PM
Sometimes, a Player feels like they have been slighted. Their Archer who could make four attacks when everyone else was only making one was forcefully retired, because it was TOO OP!!!1!!eleventy-one!! and now, they're mad. They worked hard on that character, and they were really enjoying the game. So, they decide to take it out on the rest of the group.

And thats when they start bringing in Kobolds who cast as Wizards 5 levels above their actual level, or Half-Elves who can make anyone they even glance at bow at their feet and pledge their lives in their service, or Gnomes who can emulate the power of the gods themselves.
So, in short, some people break the game because they're jerks?

Crasical
2012-05-13, 03:56 PM
So, in short, some people break the game because they're jerks?

No. They break the game because they feel like the other players are being jerks and not listening to them when they say they know what actually is and isn't overpowered.

Kallisti
2012-05-13, 06:02 PM
'I CAN PARRY THE MOON.'

I have to know.

Crasical
2012-05-13, 07:47 PM
I have to know.

Spell Compendium has a 1st level bard spell called Undersong. Undersong lets you substitute a Perform check for any concentrate check you make while under it's duration. As a 1st level spell, you can afford an amulet or ring of it fairly cheap.
Weapon Drill is a specialization of perform. You show off superior skill with your weapon, and add half your BAB to your check, but can't use this as a bardic performance.
Diamond Mind is a sword school from the Tome of Battle, several abilities from it letting you use an immediate action to replace a saving throw you are about to make with a concentrate check. There's another ability that lets you replace your AC with an attack roll, but that's secondary here.
Pick up Evasion. You can get it in a ring, or with two levels of monk or rogue.

So, Hulking hurler hucks the moon at you? If he's using Area Attack, that allows a reflex save. Immediate action, replace that save with your sky-high perform check, evasion kicks in. You show off your superior skill with your weapon. If you make that saving throw? You parry the moon getting dropped on your head.

Since you just pierced the heavens with your Weapon Drill, someone suggested the build be called Simon the Warblade. And that's the story of that.

Sutremaine
2012-05-13, 11:49 PM
No. They break the game because they feel like the other players are being jerks and not listening to them when they say they know what actually is and isn't overpowered.
You're assuming that the first player does know what is and isn't overpowered and that the rest of the players don't. You're also assuming that the 'stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about' approach is not in itself jerkish.

Kallisti
2012-05-15, 10:43 AM
Spell Compendium has a 1st level bard spell called Undersong. Undersong lets you substitute a Perform check for any concentrate check you make while under it's duration. As a 1st level spell, you can afford an amulet or ring of it fairly cheap.
Weapon Drill is a specialization of perform. You show off superior skill with your weapon, and add half your BAB to your check, but can't use this as a bardic performance.
Diamond Mind is a sword school from the Tome of Battle, several abilities from it letting you use an immediate action to replace a saving throw you are about to make with a concentrate check. There's another ability that lets you replace your AC with an attack roll, but that's secondary here.
Pick up Evasion. You can get it in a ring, or with two levels of monk or rogue.

So, Hulking hurler hucks the moon at you? If he's using Area Attack, that allows a reflex save. Immediate action, replace that save with your sky-high perform check, evasion kicks in. You show off your superior skill with your weapon. If you make that saving throw? You parry the moon getting dropped on your head.

Since you just pierced the heavens with your Weapon Drill, someone suggested the build be called Simon the Warblade. And that's the story of that.

Ah. So you can only parry the moon if someone throws it at you? That's less exciting.

Righteous Doggy
2012-05-15, 10:45 AM
Ah. So you can only parry the moon if someone throws it at you? That's less exciting.

Opinion, if someone threw the moon at me, that'd be pretty epic.(and in one game it did happen) now to be prepared to parry it back at them? Thats a little bit more isn't it?(or you can blow it up like I did...)

Midnight_v
2012-05-15, 11:34 AM
You're assuming that the first player does know what is and isn't overpowered and that the rest of the players don't. You're also assuming that the 'stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about' approach is not in itself jerkish.

1. Well the fact that we're discussing someone who totally says:
"Okay, Breaking the game in 3...2...1.. snap" If they intentionally, set to break the game and do so then we its not an assumption. Its actually "The topic" so they at least in this case know what's overpowered, at least to a comparative degree"

2. "Stop crying... etc.." It's irrelavant... and circumstantial, if such behavior is jerkish, or not, thats just a determinate of a 3rd party's view.

HONESTLY, its because of some slight, real or imagined that seems to generate that response.

I do see "FOR SCIENCE" but that was the realm of the min/max boards mostly.
More often I see "cause you make me" or "because my dm's being a jerk" one way or another.

Ever see the origin of CoDzilla?

Origin of Codzilla: by RaicalTaoist
"It bears saying: if up against a logic-impervious DM who thinks Core is balanced and Psionics isn't, then the most powerful way to disprove that is to play a C.o.D. (Cleric or Druid). Noncore material will not be necessary unless you are going for pure overkill. So by all means, if you must win that argument, take you C.o.D. to town. Annihilate the opposition. Make the NPCs and other players scream "Oh no, it's C.o.D.zilla!!!!!" in badly dubbed English. Breathe radioactive fire. Knock down buildings. Then stomp out of the burning Tokyo that is the ruins of the game and swim off into the ocean, seeking a DM with some basic cognitive functions

If you ever wonder why many people break the game right-wrong-indifferent, its because of the above.
They get a character they want to play and get ready to play it... and the dm says "No X is broke", this causes a rub. Desire to play D&D vs thinking "this guys an idiot"/"I'll show you" ulitmately... I find that neither party is completely right in scenarios like this but I did see gibberish like "X is broke core only" for about the 1st 75% of 3.5 and only near the end did people realize that splat doesn't make things worse so much as it makes some of the other classes more playable.
All that being said "for science" is a cool answer too. Not the most common one I see, but cool still...

Crasical
2012-05-15, 07:01 PM
Ah. So you can only parry the moon if someone throws it at you? That's less exciting.

:smallconfused: What... what other times would you need to parry the moon...?

Righteous Doggy
2012-05-15, 07:03 PM
:smallconfused: What... what other times would you need to parry the moon...?

When a crazed player playing a shadowmancer thingy decided to drop the shadow of the planet/moon itself. Competitoin brings out the best in us!

nedz
2012-05-15, 07:11 PM
I take it you can also parry more common things, like Fireballs ?

ericgrau
2012-05-15, 07:12 PM
I blame the internet for casually providing the ways to break the game. In person I almost never see it happen. For one you have to search carefully through a dozen books to find that one prestige class, feat or spell. Second most people play nice and don't try to break the game and the rare people who do often get booted from groups. "Break the game" is a relative term though. It's only broken if it's broken relative to what everyone else is doing. The internet raises the bar on what's considered normal. Experience with the system raises the bar too, but normally that takes a long time during which you also learn exactly how high to raise it without going beyond your friends.

Eldan
2012-05-15, 07:17 PM
Actually, I'd say that what you do is make a flourish so impressive, the moon decides not to hit you.

Crasical
2012-05-15, 07:17 PM
I take it you can also parry more common things, like Fireballs ?

Anything that allows a saving throw. You can also parry stuff that uses an attack roll, like flurries of darts from a trap, but it's less reliable unless you know of something like a power-attack in reverse that lets you lower some stat to increase your to-hit.