What does "broken" mean to you?

[Andvare]

The term broken get used a lot when talking about D&D in all its forms, IMHO because it's a poorly designed game, but it certainly is also because people don't agree on the term.

So what does "broken" mean to your?
And what does it take for something to be broken?


To me, a broken feature is something that hinders the flow, atmosphere, storytelling or enjoyment of the game.
This includes, but is not limited to:

-Game balance. Having nothing to bring to the party is just not fun in the long run, being overshadowed is detrimental to the enjoyment of most gamers. Challenges should be challenging, but not impossible. It is no fun when you destroy everything in sight with a wave of your hand, nor is it fun to get beat up by the neighbour's cat*.
In my group, we operates with the concept of Thunder. Which basically means that you should let people have their moment in the sun, and help them get there if they cannot do it alone. This sometimes means that a session revolves around just one person.
An example is the monk. This class is so poorly implemented that it is outshined on all levels by pretty much everyone, even if you scale the other characters back. It is unable to do what it is intended to do. I find the monk to be a broken class.

-Immersion. Roleplaying survives on suspense of disbelief. Nothing is worse than when you are completely immersed in your character, and something suddenly pulls you away. This is rarely something to do with the system, and most often due to some mistake a DM or player have made. But they do IMHO exist in the D&D system.
My example would be the ease of healing, especially with poison, disease and death. Death is but a minor, if somewhat expensive, inconvenience. That kills a lot of the suspense for me, and is immersion breaking.

-Narrative. Roleplaying is a its base, storytelling, and best if everybody joins in the storytelling.
When you are trying to build an intrigue scenario, and someone starts using detect lie, detect magic, know alignment and their ilk, it can severely damage the story. I despises absolutes as a person, and dislike them in any roleplaying game (though more so in other games, where the combat part is a lesser part of the game). I frequently ban them outright, and it usually gives me and my players a better experience.

-Complexity. I value storytelling far beyond combat epicness or rules. Rolemaster might have something that justify its existance, but I honestly never got to that point because the amount of rules and charts you had to wade through, killed any resemblance of a story for me.
A D&D example would be the combat manoeuvre rules. Far too complex for what it does. Something as simple as Pathfinder's CMB/CMD stats ease things quite a bit along the way.
Rules should, IMHO, be simple, the story should be the thing that is complex.


Please, let us avoid the Oberoni fallacy. You might disagree on some of these, but don't say that they aren't broken because they are easy to fix.
If something has to be fixed, no matter the amount of effort, it is per definition broken.

*An internet cookie to the one that get that reference.

[Slipperychicken]

1) So strong that it makes the game less fun because it's too strong (usually by trivializing lots of encounters, doing a well-built specialist's job better than they do).

2) So poorly-written that it's unusable or near-unusable, like Iron Heart Surge. Can result in 1) or 3).

3) I sometimes use the term as "too weak", but usually only referring to Truenamers.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Rules exploits that go against RAI. Like kobolds being epic dragons at first level. If even the most liberal DM would disallow it, it's definitely broken.

[limejuicepowder]

If you wanted to just offer your opinion of what broken is, then I would let your definition slide and chalk it up to subjectivity. But you seem to be trying to make an objective definition, so now I have to disagree with you.

First, I'll start with my definition of broken (adj.): An ability, spell, item, or rule that unintentionally and casually disrupts game balance.
Syn: not working as intended

Now for the explanation -
I took several minutes choosing the words "unintentional" and "casual;" because I didn't want to encapsulate too many abilities with my definition. To me, something is only broken when it's obvious use is incredibly unbalancing. If something is extremely powerful only when combo'd or applied in a very non-obvious and obscure way, or it is clearly meant to be extremely powerful, I would not call it broken.

For this reason, I would not call spells like zone of truth, detect X, locate whatever, etc., broken. They clearly work as intended, and are only disruptive if the DM completely fails to plan for them. Now before this sentence gets jumped on, consider this: fireball is extremely good at blowing the snots out of hordes of weak enemies, yet I highly doubt a DM would get much sympathy crying to forums about the OP'ness of the party warmage. If the DM's idea of a battle is 40 CR 1/3's, he should not be shocked by the liberal application of fireball/lightning bolt, for this is exactly what those spells are intended to do. This does not make the broken.

In summary, I mostly agree with your first paragraph about game balance, but disagree heartily with the rest. Those definitions are far too specific to the type of game you seem to like to play, thus they are completely subjective to you, and not a good measure of broken-ness.

[erikun]

I consider something broken when it cannot accomplish what it is supposed to or intended to accomplish - something that does not work is broken. Grappling is broken because it is absurdly clunky, gets largely determined by size, and is awkward to interact with. Soulknife is broken because its intended feature (+Xd6 damage for a single attack in a round) does not scale well enough with level and thus is quite pointless.

Broken can mean too powerful (Planar Binding Efreeti for 3x/day Wish) or two weak (Monk). It can include mechanics that just don't work (Truenamer) or that work so well that there is little reason to use anything else (Taint/Tainted Scholar).

Please note that I mentioned both supposed to and intended to. The game developers may have intended for a Planar Sheperd to be Druid++ and gain free Wishes through Wildshape, but that doesn't mean it is what the class is supposed to be as a prestige class.

[GreenZ]

Simply: if something is causing a problem or is not fun for the group as a general whole I consider it broken.


In some games everyone can play ridiculously optimized and 'broken' characters but have fun and in others everyone might be such lower power that a little bit of optimization from the monk is considered 'broken' and requires fixing. Generally the possibility of broken means that the game is working correctly, a perfectly balanced game might not be nearly as fun without the possibility of imbalance.

There's actually a video from Extra Credits that explains Perfect Imbalance right here (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance) that can easily be applied to roleplaying games as a whole. :smallsmile:

[navar100]

Broken is something that makes the game unplayable. It could be so powerful as to Win D&D or so weak as to Lose D&D.

What is NOT Broken is something being more powerful/weaker than your personal comfort level of power. That is just a matter of personal taste.

[GreenZ]

Broken is something that makes the game unplayable. It could be so powerful as to Win D&D or so weak as to Lose D&D.

What is NOT Broken is something being more powerful/weaker than your personal comfort level of power. That is just a matter of personal taste.

How does a person 'win' at D&D? Isn't the point to have fun? :smallconfused:

[Pika...]

When it starts killing the fun for other players, or even just the DM, then I feel it is broken.

[Kavurcen]

As a general but vague rule, I define "broken" as anything that can only be countered by itself, or by completely avoiding any encounter or engagement with it.

[eggs]

When a game stops taxing player skill in a game's core, I consider it broken.

Looking at d20 since we're in that forum, that means that for a social/intrigue game, most characters will be broken off the bat; the system just doesn't work.

Or in D&D's standard beat-stuff-up-steal-its-stuff model, it's anything that trivializes the beating-stuff-up step. Just to pretend for a second that the actual line where things become "trivial" isn't hugely subjective, I'd say that it's the point when player characters stop expending limited resources to clear level- and narratively-appropriate encounters.

[LordBlades]

Rules exploits that go against RAI. Like kobolds being epic dragons at first level. If even the most liberal DM would disallow it, it's definitely broken.

The issue with that is that in many cases RAI is not entirely clear and different people have different opinions on it. Take your Dragonwrought Kobold example: even if it's quite obvious RAI was not for the feat to allow the kind of shenanigans it does, it's still quite unclear whether the designer intended for the kobolds to be considered true dragons (and failed to grasp the full implications of it), or he intended for them to be lesser dragons (and make the feat a convoluted way to say 'take this for +3 to all mental stats').




Or in D&D's standard beat-stuff-up-steal-its-stuff model, it's anything that trivializes the beating-stuff-up step. Just to pretend for a second that the actual line where things become "trivial" isn't hugely subjective, I'd say that it's the point when player characters stop expending limited resources to clear level- and narratively-appropriate encounters.

That criteria flags tier 1 casters aren't broken (spells are limited after all) but flags a lot of tier 3 and below as 'broken'(everything that has always-on, at will or per encounter abilities).

[Andvare]

If you wanted to just offer your opinion of what broken is, then I would let your definition slide and chalk it up to subjectivity. But you seem to be trying to make an objective definition, so now I have to disagree with you.

No no, I'm genuinely interested in what people think broken means to them. That is why I started that whole thing with "to me". I don't think there is an "objective truth" to, well, almost anything. And certainly not this.

I also think that a discussion on what broken is would be interesting, considering the hair splitting debates such as whether or not fly is a broken spell.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ Lordblades: RAI (rules as interpretted) is subjective. So is "broken." The only way to define broken objectively is if something is non-functional as written. E.g. trunamers lexicon of the perfected map, pre-eratta. People decry the trunamer as broken, but I've been following a pbp in which a player is using a single class truenamer quite functionally and contributing to her party's successes in and out of battle.

[eggs]

That criteria flags tier 1 casters aren't broken (spells are limited after all) but flags a lot of tier 3 and below as 'broken'(everything that has always-on, at will or per encounter abilities).
It only flags the weak classes if they aren't risking HP or status effects. It only flags the if they find a way not to suffer attrition (recharge mechanics, planar binding).

I couldn't care less if the Wizard reshapes reality alongside a Samurai who pokes at things with a stick. If the players have a problem, we can hash out a fix or rebuild the character. But as long as the players have limited power/resources, I can provide a story and a game.

[LordBlades]

It only flags the weak classes if they aren't risking HP or status effects. It only flags the if they find a way not to suffer attrition (recharge mechanics, planar binding).

I couldn't care less if the Wizard reshapes reality alongside a Samurai who pokes at things with a stick. If the players have a problem, we can hash out a fix or rebuild the character. But as long as the players have limited power/resources, I can provide a story and a game.

Details aside (like the triviality of making HP practically infinite via OOC healing), I'm genuinely curious why do you think having infinite resources can't function in a game (assuming the power level is still acceptable of course)?

In the end the players go through the adventure, overcome all the challenges, and then they embark on the next one. Why do you consider it matters so much if the downtime needed to recover is 5 minutes or 1 day or whatever?

[whibla]

The term broken get used a lot when talking about D&D in all its forms, IMHO because it's a poorly designed game, but it certainly is also because people don't agree on the term.

So what does "broken" mean to your? (sic)
And what does it take for something to be broken?
...
Please, let us avoid the Oberoni fallacy. You might disagree on some of these, but don't say that they aren't broken because they are easy to fix.
If something has to be fixed, no matter the amount of effort, it is per definition broken.

If I may say, asking for our opinions on what is broken, or what it means for something to be broken then stating your opinion as a matter of fact is not conducive to an open minded debate.

And, with respect, I disagree with virtually every example you gave in your post...

1. The monk is not broken. It may be, in the context of the game classes as a whole, relatively weak, but you could, on that basis, argue that it's every other class that's broken. (I'll just add that I do not think either case to be true. Class balance may be an issue, but picking on the weaker one and saying that's broken ignores the flip side of the coin, namely why the other classes are so much stronger.)

2. I find neither healing, nor the availability of Lazarus spells, broken. Neither detracts from the immersiveness (?) of the game. There are penalties built into every method of returning from the grave, and even with these spells no-one likes dying. As for 'invisible' healing out of played game time...well, if you're playing in a non-time critical, static world, where's the problem. If you're not, then it becomes a non-issue.

3. The various divinations are not, by and large, broken, regardless of your personal like or dislike of them. They all have counters, some as low as 1st level. As a DM if I chose to run a murder mystery, or a complex intrigue scenario, and my protagonist(s) do not have means of foiling such spells as Detect Lie then the fault lies with me, the DM, not the spells that the players have.

4. And finally, regarding complexity, the number of rules, or lack thereof, do not make for a broken system. If players or DM's do not know the rules for the abilities or spells they're using, or the basic rules for interacting with the environment the fault, again, lies with the players and the DM. A specific rule may be broken (I'll give an example below), but that has practically nothing to do with how many rules there are. Of course, the more rules that exist within a system the more careful you have to be when introducing new rules, to ensure that you consider all the possible interactions with the existing rules. There is no point, however, that you can say "If I introduce any new rule now, it will, by definition, be broken".


The simplest answer to "what does broken mean" is something that doesn't work, or something that doesn't work as intended. Unfortunately, especially in the later case, that is very much a subjective answer. In addition, broken is not a binary state. It's a continuum from works perfectly, cannot be improved, all the way down to will never work, should be thrown out with the trash.

For my part I would consider several categories of broken:

Makes no logical sense. The falling object rules are a perfect example of this. It makes no sense for a large object to cause crazy damage in the first 10' of a fall, then trivial additional damage for each additional 10'. It goes against the known laws of physics.

Violates / Trivialises standard class (ability) progression. The Ur-Priest is an example of this. Theoretically accessible at 5th level, gives 9th level spells by 14th character level. The situation is further exacerbated in combination with a Theurge PrC. The progression and power disparity between this and any Core caster makes me cringe. (Note, I do realise that this might seem to go against something I said above regarding what constitutes 'the' broken class. I can live with this seeming inconsistency, in a world of shades of grey...)

Trivial cost, great power. For example feats such as theurgic specialist, which allows CL stacking from both sides of a Theurge. Compare this to a feat which gives +1 CL (and often only in very specific situations). Wait, +10 CL vs. +1 CL ... there is no comparison.

Infinte loops. Doesn't really need any explanation, I'd hope. Any ability, power, feat, or combination of them that allows for infinite power loops needs to be rewritten to specifically disallow such loops to happen.

There are a whole host more examples I can give (including a number of specific magic items), but many in themselves might not be broken per se, but rely on other aspects of the game which are, or rather, which do not function quite as intended...

Who, really, can say though what was intended?

[Tyndmyr]

The term broken get used a lot when talking about D&D in all its forms, IMHO because it's a poorly designed game, but it certainly is also because people don't agree on the term.

So what does "broken" mean to your?
And what does it take for something to be broken?

The game ceases to work. A broken thing is a thing that is no longer functioning.

In general, anything that results in infinite/NI combos, I consider broken, as they tend to result in a no longer functioning game. This may not be the case in all games, but it seems to be a general trend.

Things that merely change the nature of the game, I do not consider broken. For instance, in D&D, I consider that the game changes notably at the acquisition of each of these spells: Fly, Teleport, Plane Shift. This does not mean that these are broken, merely that the game changes significantly once this milestone is reached.

[Zubrowka74]

1. The monk is not broken. It may be, in the context of the game classes as a whole, relatively weak, but you could, on that basis, argue that it's every other class that's broken. (I'll just add that I do not think either case to be true. Class balance may be an issue, but picking on the weaker one and saying that's broken ignores the flip side of the coin, namely why the other classes are so much stronger.)

I have to agree with this. If you look waaaaaay back at 1e, the Monk class was meant as a challenging option for more experienced players. The class was intended to be weaker, at least the way I see it. Same thing for the whole bard being made up of three different classes. The "lower tiers" classes only look broken since 3.x and the attempt at making every level / class equivalent in terms of power.

[eggs]

Details aside (like the triviality of making HP practically infinite via OOC healing), I'm genuinely curious why do you think having infinite resources can't function in a game (assuming the power level is still acceptable of course)?
I'm thinking my phrase "expending limited resources" was problematic. I don't just mean using things like spell slots or PP; I mean losing or risking losing any tools the party can use. Those Wands of Lesser Vigor or Restoration, cohorts, gold pieces, whatever.

As long as there's a reachable limit to the tools the players can use to trivialize the situations I throw at them, there's a way for them to lose.

But once the characters don't have a way to lose - any stakes or any risks - there's not a whole lot of room left for a plot or much of a point to a wargame.

[ericgrau]

Basically anything that ruins the game. For balance it's relative to the gaming group, and means anything way stronger or way weaker than everyone else. Then you can't challenge one person without slaughtering another.

I'd say that anything that's so silly and nonsensical even in a fantasy setting that it breaks the immersive story/roleplaying is broken too.

But I wouldn't start calling a dozen basic game mechanics like resurrection broken. Just part of this fantasy way of life. They're essential for game balance as counters to many monster abilities. If you don't like them I'd try E6 (level capped at 6) or something that's not D&D. Also keep in mind that 95% of NPCs can't afford them (and 99.99% for more major things).