Why the hate for "win buttons"?

[Drakevarg]

Stop resenting...

Don't try to convince me...

"Hello, Pot? This is Kettle speaking..."

[Max_Killjoy]

I'd ask what scope of power is being assumed at a particular level. It would seem that the levels where flying/teleporting/etc. become a perceived problem are also usually the levels where the counters and negations of those abilities show up. Could it instead be people wanting a particular scope of power at a particular level but playing a game that has a different set of assumptions?


It could be that D&D (at least since 3.x) is actually a really bad system for most of the things that people want to play, unless they find the level that it kinda works for that thing -- if you hammer it in sideways and squint -- and stay right at that level without "progressing".

And that it's not accurate for the publisher or the fans to imply, if not outright assert, that it's a "generic fantasy system"... and that played RAW, it's only really good for a very specific kind of game.

And that most of the settings presented for use with the system are horribly asynchronous with that system.

[Quertus]

When you're only using your skills because it's not worth it for the caster to spend spell slots, its hard to feel like you're character is contributing more than another, identical Caster would.

Edit: This isn't a question of Logic, it's a question of psychology and what feels fun at the table.

Logically, a lockpicking rogue can PROBABLY open any given lock, basically for free (it may take them a bit of time). A Wizard with Knock can Guaranteed open that lock, instantly, by expending resources.

So, logically speaking, it's better to use the Rogue as primary, with the wizard as backup. Logically, the Rogue's position as "Party Lockpicker" is safe until the wizard reaches a point where casting "knock" is no longer a meaningful expenditure of resources.

But, that's not what it feels like for the rogue. Especially if you're invested in the idea of your character as The Party Lockpicker, knowing that what you consider a key part of what your character is bringing to the table is, at best, preserving the wizard's resources doesn't do a lot to make you feel special.

Sigh. Sounds like I need to add, "because humans are highly irrational beings" to my list of reasons I understand why people hate win buttons.

But this also touches on another bit of human foolishness: the concept of defining your character by its expected role.

In one group of my friends, I am "the programmer". But, in another group of my friends, we're all programmers. If I had defined myself as "the programmer", I'd be sorely disappointed with my experience with that group. But I'm not. The existence of all those other programmers doesn't make me any less me. Not does hanging out with someone smarter than me, or more of a **** than me, or even a fellow programmer who is smarter and more of a **** than me. Because I am more than just a collection of attributes.

Why would anyone be invested in the idea of having a particular role for their character, especially when it so obviously can cause such huge disappointment and dissatisfaction with an otherwise good game?


Knock is just an easy example. The classic "Rogue Lockpick" may be oversimplified, but it has a strong presence in the general conciousness. Knock is egregious because it's a guaranteed success with nothing else to it. Unlike Flight which, yeah, invalidates climb and jump checks, but also makes other things possible, Knock literally just opens locks better than any mundane lockpick could. It's not so much that Knock itself ruins games, but it's the easiest, most straightforward example of an I-Win Button. If you took Knock out of the game, Open Lock would become more important, but you wouldn't really lose anything else.

A better example is save-or-lose spells invalidating the Fighter, since all the damage dealt doesn't matter if the enemy just gets turned to stone as soon as the Wizard can be bothered to do so.

This may be a definitions thing again, but, to me, save or lose is not a win button, because it doesn't just work. Unlike the D&D Knock spell.

I've only ever seen one character - a Tainted Sorcerer I built in a game using the optional rule where a natural 20 wasn't an automatic success - who actually made SoD spells into win buttons.


It would be a waste of the wizard's spell to petrify an opponent the fighter is already damaging and occupying the opponent's actions. Better is to petrify an opponent otherwise not hurt or engaged to deny those actions. If the wizard is to attack the opponent the fighter is fighting use a lower level spell to contribute to damage attrition, debuff the opponent, or buff the fighter. Just because a wizard can do something doesn't mean he should. He's better off using the Wand of Knock when the rogue is not with him or failed to open the lock for whatever reason and can't try again.

As the proverb goes, when you have a hammer everything is a nail, but the issue is not the existence of the hammer.

Yay tactics! :smallcool: Maybe it's just because I usually play with the war gamer crowd, but I kinda expect people to just get this concept.


The recurring pattern in this thread seems to be "any argument I don't comprehend/sympathize with is invalid."

Over and over and over it's "I don't like Win Buttons because X, Y and Z." "Well X, Y and Z don't matter or are good things, so what's the problem?"

People have different opinions, fine. But this entire thread has been a circular debate about how each other's preferences are wrong.

Now, it's fair to say I'll reject any argument I don't understand. If I don't understand it, it has no value to helping me understand the hate win buttons receive. Kinda defeats the point of making the thread there.

And I've repeatedly pointed out where people's argument for their declared hatred of win buttons was misplaced. The most common example being when what they describe isn't a hate of win buttons, but a hate of game imbalance, particularly of one particular system. Hating something that happens to have win buttons is not the same as hating win buttons.

But, by all means, if you feel I've argued that someone's preferences are wrong, point it out to me! The bloody point of this thread is for me to learn, and if I learn some additional things in the process, like that I'm unknowingly attacking people's preferences instead of their ideas, bonus.


For the record, my contempt for Win Buttons is simply because to me they are the equivalent of playing an "escape the room" puzzle wherein on one side of the room there are a number of esoteric objects which can be cleverly combined to provide a variety of solutions... and on the other side of the room is a big green button labeled "RESOLVE" which just opens the door.

The standard counterargument in this thread seems to be "well then the GM shouldn't have put that kind of puzzle there in the first place." So in other words, the only scenarios allowed in an RPG are the very limited set of situations in which these Win Buttons don't apply? Why not just take those spells out then and just have a big long list of stories you're not allowed to tell?


Yes, I flatly do resent it. Because what stories I am or am not allowed to tell shouldn't be dictated by a frakking spell list.

Hmmm... You probably shouldn't bank on being able to tell the story of how the crippled boy (commoner 1) defeated the level 20 D&D party. It just doesn't work in the system. What stories you can reasonably tell is limited by the system, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Just like I can't reasonably tell the story of how Batman punched Superman in the face, and broke Superman's jaw (without the appropriate McGuffin).

That win buttons do an excellent job of pointing this out may be frustrating to you, but it is more of a guiding light for some, helping them to see what stories are valid to craft.

Myself, I don't care about that kind of thing. I consider it akin to railroading, which I personally hate. For me, I just craft the scenario, and the story is what you tell after the fact. Even if that's, "and then the party teleported the ring to Mount Doom. Boy, was the GM surprised".

There was talk upthread about system / setting disconnect - what you're describing doesn't sound like a hate of win buttons so much as system / story or system / railroad disconnect, and blaming the win buttons for pointing that out, to me.


As Mechalich said, there's also the question of required system mastery to not blow things up. Experienced players may well not select Teleport because they know that short-circuiting the adventure means that everybody will wind up sitting around with nothing to do.

Or experienced players may prioritize teleport, to communicate that they're bored of the rings. :smalltongue: It all depends on preferences, and what parts of the game everyone cares about.

As was mentioned upthread, few real gamers "in the wild" in several of our rather extensive anecdotal experiences complain about teleport coming online.

That having been said, I've rarely seen parties that exclusively teleport from place to place, even when they technically could do so. Having teleport doesn't actually prevent people from using their feet / horses / whatever to travel.

I've seen GMs tripped up because the party had certain win buttons capabilities. I've seen GMs tripped up because the party didn't have certain win buttons capabilities. I've seen GMs tripped up because the party had certain win buttons capabilities, but didn't use them. I can't help but feel that the underlying problem is the GM assuming that the game will go a certain way.

[Drakevarg]

Now, it's fair to say I'll reject any argument I don't understand. If I don't understand it, it has no value to helping me understand the hate win buttons receive. Kinda defeats the point of making the thread there.

But, by all means, if you feel I've argued that someone's preferences are wrong, point it out to me! The bloody point of this thread is for me to learn, and if I learn some additional things in the process, like that I'm unknowingly attacking people's preferences instead of their ideas, bonus.

So your standpoint is that rather than making any sort of effort to understand people's positions, you should just declare such positions meaningless and shrug off anyone holding those positions as irrational idiots who don't understand their own motives, while waiting for someone to show up who simultaneously holds an opinion you're against for reasons you agree with?

This is not a good way to learn.

[Mutazoia]

So your standpoint is that rather than making any sort of effort to understand people's positions, you should just declare such positions meaningless and shrug off anyone holding those positions as irrational idiots who don't understand their own motives, while waiting for someone to show up who simultaneously holds an opinion you're against for reasons you agree with?

This is not a good way to learn.

The more you study, the more you know.The more you know, the more you forget. The more you forget, the less you know. The less you know, the less you forget. The less you forget, the more you know. So why learn?

[Pex]

It's pretty telling when an argument comes down to personal attacks from one side...

Depends on your definition of "attack". See 5E thread.


"Hello, Pot? This is Kettle speaking..."

Point.

My point still stands that someone not liking high level play doesn't make the game wrong.

[Hooligan]

Depends on your definition of "attack". See 5E thread.

High comedy

[Quertus]

So your standpoint is that rather than making any sort of effort to understand people's positions, you should just declare such positions meaningless and shrug off anyone holding those positions as irrational idiots who don't understand their own motives, while waiting for someone to show up who simultaneously holds an opinion you're against for reasons you agree with?

This is not a good way to learn.

No, I'll tell people directly why their argument doesn't "make the list". If I've misunderstood their position, they're welcome to help me understand.

That I'm a ****, and this (apparently) comes off as me attacking their preferences makes the process more offputting. How would you suggest going about getting to the heart of the matter with a group of people with different backgrounds, different experiences, different biases, and different styles of communication?

My method is, "convince me", and then, like an old punch card reader, outputting exactly what a given argument succeeded at convincing me. Well, I suppose I'd like to think my feedback is actually more helpful for producing a useful program than that, complete with "when you say X, this is what I hear" error messages and such. Plus the option to improve the compiler; i.e., teach this old dog some new tricks.

EDIT: And I don't think it's fair to describe it as an opinion I'm against. I'm against railroading - at least in any game I'm in, what you do in the privacy of your own game is your business - but reasons to hate win buttons is just something I don't get, not something I oppose.

[Drakevarg]

The idea that they have to "make the list" implies that the onus is on those who dislike Win Buttons to 'justify' themselves to you. They don't. You asked a question and they answered it, just because you don't understand their reasoning doesn't mean it wasn't a valid answer. You are trying to understand, not to be persuaded that it's the right, correct?

If you want to understand, it's your job to seek understanding. If a line of reasoning doesn't resonate with you, investigate it. Ask why they have a problem with those things, don't just make up your own conclusions as to why, that just comes off as dismissive. And if their reasoning boils down to personal preference, that doesn't need justification or rationalization either, it just is. Shrug it off as a taste thing and move on. But taste is still an entirely valid reason to not like them.

[BRC]

Sigh. Sounds like I need to add, "because humans are highly irrational beings" to my list of reasons I understand why people hate win buttons.

But this also touches on another bit of human foolishness: the concept of defining your character by its expected role.

In one group of my friends, I am "the programmer". But, in another group of my friends, we're all programmers. If I had defined myself as "the programmer", I'd be sorely disappointed with my experience with that group. But I'm not. The existence of all those other programmers doesn't make me any less me. Not does hanging out with someone smarter than me, or more of a **** than me, or even a fellow programmer who is smarter and more of a **** than me. Because I am more than just a collection of attributes.

Why would anyone be invested in the idea of having a particular role for their character, especially when it so obviously can cause such huge disappointment and dissatisfaction with an otherwise good game?
Humans are irrational beings. I find that the rational thing to do is often to acknowledge, and not judge each other's irrationality.


The Metaphor of your friends group doesn't really apply here, because you didn't make a conscious choice to join the group with a given role, your relationship with your friends is much more nuanced and complex than your characters role in a group could ever be, and you didn't really give anything up to be the "You" of your friend group.

Let's try a different metaphor. Let's say you and your friends are going to have a Potluck dinner together. Everybody is going to make something for the meal. You volunteer to provide dessert, and decide to make a Pie from scratch. It's hard work, but learning to cook something was the point of this potluck, and you're excited to share the result with your friends.

You arrive at the meal, and everybody has brought something they made. But, there's already a Pie there. "Oh", one of your Friends says "Yeah, I was at the store getting ingredients for my dish and I saw this pie. It looked really tasty so I went ahead and bought it".
Their pie is just as good, if not better, than your pie (it's made by a professional, after all). Had you known they were going to just buy a pie, you could have made something else. You gave up the chance to bring something else, say, brownies, because you wanted to make a Pie. As far as the meal goes, they've contributed everything you contributed and more.

Everybody else gets the fun of sharing their dish with the group, but you have to compare your dish with they pie your friend brought.

[Actana]

Personally I think a lot of issue with higher level game breaking powers is that the game doesn't really accommodate them nearly as well as it could. I don't recall much if any guidance on how to create effective and challenging higher level encounters and adventures. This can easily lead to the GM attempting to run lower level challenges for higher level characters because the system doesn't really tell you anything about how the game changes and what kind of challenges are made obsolete. It's easy to get the impression that the game runs the same throughout levels, just with fancier named and fluffed abilities and higher numbers - but still fundamentally remaining the same.

And when higher levels happen, the GM isn't necessarily expecting the players to pull out those dozen abilities that bypass encounters entirely, leaving the GM frustrated and feeling like the game is broken in some way. They're not necessarily wrong: the game is broken - but in a way where it fails to provide the necessary tools for a GM to effectively run the encounters and guidance on how to deal with it.

[Tinkerer]

You arrive at the meal, and everybody has brought something they made. But, there's already a Pie there. "Oh", one of your Friends says "Yeah, I was at the store getting ingredients for my dish and I saw this pie. It looked really tasty so I went ahead and bought it".
Their pie is just as good, if not better, than your pie (it's made by a professional, after all). Had you known they were going to just buy a pie, you could have made something else. You gave up the chance to bring something else, say, brownies, because you wanted to make a Pie. As far as the meal goes, they've contributed everything you contributed and more.
Before someone brings up expenditure of resources in response to this bear in mind that in the game which most people are talking about when they complain about win buttons in games had virtually no expenditure of resources for the win buttons. I recall many many conversations on this forum where people were saying "Well obviously if your group doesn't run up a Rope Trick after every encounter you are idiots and you are pissing off the magic users who are the only thing keeping your group relevant". This is in addition to magic item spam (what is the minimum cost that you can bring a Knock spell down to, 10gp per use?).

I don't think that there is a hatred for win buttons, I think there is a hatred for a specific group of builds from a specific game.

[Lord Raziere]

Before someone brings up expenditure of resources in response to this bear in mind that in the game which most people are talking about when they complain about win buttons in games had virtually no expenditure of resources for the win buttons. I recall many many conversations on this forum where people were saying "Well obviously if your group doesn't run up a Rope Trick after every encounter you are idiots and you are pissing off the magic users who are the only thing keeping your group relevant". This is in addition to magic item spam (what is the minimum cost that you can bring a Knock spell down to, 10gp per use?).

I don't think that there is a hatred for win buttons, I think there is a hatred for a specific group of builds from a specific game.

Don't try to change the subject, I know what I'm saying.

Solar Exalted? The I Win Button Exalted. Hate those to. "Screw you I just win." is the worst design choice you can possibly make. Whats the strategy in "screw you I win"? None. Give downsides and limitations, make using things have cost and strategy.

If one way is clearly the best, I just hate it because then I can't be alternate in a way thats just as good without ever resorting to it.

[HidesHisEyes]

I don't have time to read the whole thread so sorry if I'm covering old ground.

I think the abilities that problematic are the ones that make it hard for GMs to challenge the players. If my whole game depends on the players being obstructed by a chasm and they can fly over it then that can be incredibly frustrating.

I find this is a much bigger problem in one-shots where if the PCs manage to short-circuit the adventure then there isn't anything else for them to do, because I haven't prepared anything else. For these games I make sure I know what the PCs can and can't do at their level and know what I can and can't use to challenge them.

In an on-going game, if it's railroady (which I don't consider automatically a bad thing by the way) then you need to do the same. But in a long-running sandbox style game you just build the world the way you want to and accept that sometimes the players will short-circuit things. This is fine, because in this case the fun is unfolding over many sessions, and if the PCs are able to thwart the deceptive lying merchant in one corner of the world because they stumbled on the "zone of truth wand" in another, that's really no different from them using the fire sword against the ice elemental. It's all part of the game.

As for whether a specific ability "just works" or has some kind of diceroll to see if it works, this isn't really a problem either. Dice rolls aren't the only way of limiting an ability - if you're invisible and someone hears your footstep and throws some dirt at you then they've countered the invisibility. Also, in a lot of situations a dice roll provides a chance of shot-circuiting something anyway. A zone of truth wand might give you a 100% chance to thwart the lying merchant but if an Insight check can give you a 5% chance then that's no more acceptable to a GM who is counting on you being deceived by the guy.

[Tinkerer]

Don't try to change the subject, I know what I'm saying.

Solar Exalted? The I Win Button Exalted. Hate those to. "Screw you I just win." is the worst design choice you can possibly make. Whats the strategy in "screw you I win"? None. Give downsides and limitations, make using things have cost and strategy.

If one way is clearly the best, I just hate it because then I can't be alternate in a way thats just as good without ever resorting to it.

*chuckle* Yeah Solar Exalted is one of those cases of all Solar or no Solar. There they tried to have the I win buttons balance... how well they succeeded varies. Although in that game I thought they said all/nothing, much like in other games if you were playing gods it should be all gods or no gods. There will generally be "one best way" though that you can't be "just as good at" when dealing with numbers and this many options. The guideline isn't to go for "just as good at" but rather "on roughly the same level". For instance with the Knock spell (yes I'm still going on the Knock spell considering it's one of the true I win buttons) considering it's spell level I'd have set it up so that it automatically picks up to DC20 or 25 level locks.

And I must apologize, what I intended to say was that there isn't a general hatred of win buttons just a general hatred of how they are allocated. I didn't intend to say that no-one hates win buttons.

[Darth Ultron]

Personally I think a lot of issue with higher level game breaking powers is that the game doesn't really accommodate them nearly as well as it could. I don't recall much if any guidance on how to create effective and challenging higher level encounters and adventures. This can easily lead to the GM attempting to run lower level challenges for higher level characters because the system doesn't really tell you anything about how the game changes and what kind of challenges are made obsolete. It's easy to get the impression that the game runs the same throughout levels, just with fancier named and fluffed abilities and higher numbers - but still fundamentally remaining the same.


This has always been a bit of a problem with games like D&D. Player characters get powerful fast, to make the game fun and exciting, but then the game books are a bit vague on what to do for a high level game.

The books do have higher level monsters, traps, and spells.....but spaced out and vague. So even going by the book, a lot of DM's are just left hanging.

And it is only a hundred times worse with a ''Buddy DM'' that won't do ''bad'' or ''negative'' things to the PC's anyway as they don't ''feel'' it is right or don't want to ''make people sad'' or some such thing. A ton of DM's don't use traps, harmful spells, poison, harmful terrain, and lots of other stuff.

So at a high level the DM is still like ''ok, the monster is standing in the open field waiting for you awesome players to make the first move and attack''. Then the ''awesome'' players do their carefully crafted roll playing optimized things and combos and effects. Everyone ''oohhs' and ''ahhhs'' when Jimmy has a character...through some rules tomfoolery take like six five foot steps and make like three full attacks in one round. The players, of course, defeat the monster and high five.

Then the DM sits back and is like ''something feels wrong'', and maybe posts about it. And someone might post back ''well, just make things harder'' and the DM will go crazy and be like ''no! I must let my players walk all over me..."

[Doug Lampert]

Barricaded doors can not be knocked, strong winds can interfere with flight, jagged rocks can present a danger to those who fly and fail. Dispel magic can make you fall to your demise if you're attempting to fly in combat. And of course when there's an "invisibility" spell there's usually a "see invisibility" spell too.

To be sure it does trivialize a lot of obstacles

You won't fall to your demise in 3.5.

From the SRD: You can use dispel magic to end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, to end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area, or to counter another spellcaster’s spell. A dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired.

Also from the SRD: Should the spell duration expire while the subject is still aloft, the magic fails slowly. The subject floats downward 60 feet per round for 1d6 rounds. If it reaches the ground in that amount of time, it lands safely.

Dispelling fly is deadly if you are (a) thousands of feet in the air, (b) can't recast, and (c) didn't prepare feather fall.

[Lord Raziere]

*chuckle* Yeah Solar Exalted is one of those cases of all Solar or no Solar. There they tried to have the I win buttons balance... how well they succeeded varies. Although in that game I thought they said all/nothing, much like in other games if you were playing gods it should be all gods or no gods. There will generally be "one best way" though that you can't be "just as good at" when dealing with numbers and this many options. The guideline isn't to go for "just as good at" but rather "on roughly the same level". For instance with the Knock spell (yes I'm still going on the Knock spell considering it's one of the true I win buttons) considering it's spell level I'd have set it up so that it automatically picks up to DC20 or 25 level locks.

And I must apologize, what I intended to say was that there isn't a general hatred of win buttons just a general hatred of how they are allocated. I didn't intend to say that no-one hates win buttons.

Mm.

I just need my Abyssal and Infernal Exalted like things y'know? Those make me actually interested. I just know that when there is an Automatic Best Way, I don't want it and will reject it, and seek out anything that is an interesting alternative. At the same time, I'd rather not know that there is a best way so I can make whatever I want without worrying about it, really.

[Tinkerer]

Barricaded doors can not be knocked, strong winds can interfere with flight, jagged rocks can present a danger to those who fly and fail. Dispel magic can make you fall to your demise if you're attempting to fly in combat. And of course when there's an "invisibility" spell there's usually a "see invisibility" spell too.

To be sure it does trivialize a lot of obstacles

Also most barricaded doors will be affected by knock. Heck even welded shut doors are affected by knock. Winds need to be severe enough to the point where they are uprooting trees before they will affect flying creatures.

[icefractal]

There seems to be an assumption that once you're using any high-level magic, you're going full on TO and nothing can be a challenge, but IME that's not the case. More often, people are still working with limited resources and not auto-defeating foes, and normal obstacles still work fine - they just teleport or use other strategic abilities sometimes.

Now yes, some challenges are still obsoleted - being far away or up a tall cliff isn't a big deal at that point, for instance. But I don't see that as much different than lower level monsters being obsoleted. At 1st level, the Ogre Badlands were a big threat and you had to sneak or ally with a local group to get through. At 15th level, you can just stroll through openly. But on the other hand, at 1st level you didn't dare go to the Midnight Sea at all, and now you can. Some challenges disappear, some appear.

This only applies if the GM has some level of world consistency, admittedly. If things scale with you Oblivion-style then every challenge stays equally relevant. But at that point, why even have multiple levels, much less twenty of them?

[Forum Explorer]

Moving away from D&D 3.5, into a different system. Let me give two examples of why Win Buttons are bad.

1. You've Got to Earn It: In it, I've made a character who specializes in Stealth. I've invested a lot of skill points, feats, and special abilities into being stealthy. And I've succeeded! The vast majority of the time, I can both sneak, and be unseen when I do so. So yay for me. But that comes at an opportunity cost. I'm still using my starting weapon, my combat, research, and social skills are all weaker, and if I face an opponent that is immune to sneak, then all I can really do is talk at them. So I'd be pretty upset if a new player showed up one day, and there character could out-sneak me at the low cost of a single spell. I'd feel like my entire character is invalidated because they can do my whole shtick better, or just as well, without paying that opportunity cost.

2. Poorly Designed Systems: In this system you can get LoS Teleport at level 1. It doesn't even cost a lot to get. I made a character (different character) who could only teleport (this was a stupid thing to do, and deliberately weakening myself). Well my GM was getting frustrated with me teleporting past every obstacle, and said this next opponent had an anti-teleport spell. I pointed out that said spell was a level 12+ ability, and that this guy was only supposed to be like level 5 or so. So the GM is in a tough spot of how to handle my character without resorting to Deus Exing a solution that doesn't make sense because it isn't fun for him if I teleport, and it isn't fun for me to be arbitrarily shut down. (One of the reasons that character ended up being retired.)

[Quertus]

The idea that they have to "make the list" implies that the onus is on those who dislike Win Buttons to 'justify' themselves to you. They don't. You asked a question and they answered it, just because you don't understand their reasoning doesn't mean it wasn't a valid answer. You are trying to understand, not to be persuaded that it's the right, correct?

If you want to understand, it's your job to seek understanding. If a line of reasoning doesn't resonate with you, investigate it. Ask why they have a problem with those things, don't just make up your own conclusions as to why, that just comes off as dismissive. And if their reasoning boils down to personal preference, that doesn't need justification or rationalization either, it just is. Shrug it off as a taste thing and move on. But taste is still an entirely valid reason to not like them.

Not justify, explain. I can't honestly say, "I understand this reason" when I don't understand it.

That having been said, you're right, there is a bit of "justify" in there, too, as, from a game design perspective, some of the complaints don't seem to be about win buttons at all. From my reading of the explanation, they're about game balance issues, or story / setting / system / railroad mismatch, or whatever. They're things that are bad, but not things specific to win buttons. So, yes, to some extent, it's a but if mixed in "why are win buttons bad", not just "why do win buttons get hate" thread, and that's my bad for not understanding my motivations enough to be clear about what I'm trying to accomplish in this thread.

I'm not really sure I fully understand my motivations (yes, plural) yet, but thank you for helping me see that they're more complicated than I had initially indicated.


Humans are irrational beings. I find that the rational thing to do is often to acknowledge, and not judge each other's irrationality.

Do I come off as overly judgemental?


The Metaphor of your friends group doesn't really apply here, because you didn't make a conscious choice to join the group with a given role, your relationship with your friends is much more nuanced and complex than your characters role in a group could ever be, and you didn't really give anything up to be the "You" of your friend group.

Let's try a different metaphor. Let's say you and your friends are going to have a Potluck dinner together. Everybody is going to make something for the meal. You volunteer to provide dessert, and decide to make a Pie from scratch. It's hard work, but learning to cook something was the point of this potluck, and you're excited to share the result with your friends.

You arrive at the meal, and everybody has brought something they made. But, there's already a Pie there. "Oh", one of your Friends says "Yeah, I was at the store getting ingredients for my dish and I saw this pie. It looked really tasty so I went ahead and bought it".
Their pie is just as good, if not better, than your pie (it's made by a professional, after all). Had you known they were going to just buy a pie, you could have made something else. You gave up the chance to bring something else, say, brownies, because you wanted to make a Pie. As far as the meal goes, they've contributed everything you contributed and more.

Everybody else gets the fun of sharing their dish with the group, but you have to compare your dish with they pie your friend brought.

Having a professionally made pie to compare mine against - especially the ways in which my pie is inferior - would be viewed as a bonus, for me. It optimizes my opportunities to learn. Having a disproportionate number of pies, OTOH, is suboptimal. We may need to work harder to optimize the pot luck experience in the future.


Moving away from D&D 3.5, into a different system. Let me give two examples of why Win Buttons are bad.

1. You've Got to Earn It: In it, I've made a character who specializes in Stealth. I've invested a lot of skill points, feats, and special abilities into being stealthy. And I've succeeded! The vast majority of the time, I can both sneak, and be unseen when I do so. So yay for me. But that comes at an opportunity cost. I'm still using my starting weapon, my combat, research, and social skills are all weaker, and if I face an opponent that is immune to sneak, then all I can really do is talk at them. So I'd be pretty upset if a new player showed up one day, and there character could out-sneak me at the low cost of a single spell. I'd feel like my entire character is invalidated because they can do my whole shtick better, or just as well, without paying that opportunity cost.

2. Poorly Designed Systems: In this system you can get LoS Teleport at level 1. It doesn't even cost a lot to get. I made a character (different character) who could only teleport (this was a stupid thing to do, and deliberately weakening myself). Well my GM was getting frustrated with me teleporting past every obstacle, and said this next opponent had an anti-teleport spell. I pointed out that said spell was a level 12+ ability, and that this guy was only supposed to be like level 5 or so. So the GM is in a tough spot of how to handle my character without resorting to Deus Exing a solution that doesn't make sense because it isn't fun for him if I teleport, and it isn't fun for me to be arbitrarily shut down. (One of the reasons that character ended up being retired.)

... #1 sounds like how they were poorly implemented, rather than anything inherently bad about win buttons themselves.

#2 sounds like a lot of problems (I'm quick to jump on problems with the GM, personally), but you've even labeled it as a problem with the system. Now, the GM clearly had a problem with the ability, and no skill at dealing with it. But it's hard to say whether that's a problem with the system, the GM, or the existence of the ability itself.

So, my question is, if win buttons had what you would consider an appropriate price tag, would you still have any problems with them?

[Quertus]

Can we have a serious discussion about this?

I would love to hear ideas about a system where you can balance this sort of thing.

In my experience doing it right means cutting out so many elements of what makes a wizard cool or entire aspects of the game.

Now, I assume you don't actually want "balance," as your previous couple of threads have indicated that you like games where casters are flat out better than muggles, but it is still hard to have any semblance of balance when the really cool things wizards can do become at will.


For example:

If wizards have buffs every group that doesn't have a dedicated "buff monkey," is at a massive disadvantage in every area.
If wizards have mind control / summoning abilities they need to have a very very short duration or we get into endless armies that are impossible to manage.
If wizards can heal wounds we need to throw out the whole resource management aspect of the game and most encounters cease to be meaningful from either a tactical or narrative sense.
If wizards can transmute / conjure / or craft objects the economy ceases to be a factor.
If wizards have spells like long distance teleportation or creating food the setting no longer makes any sense unless you do something like Tippyverse.

Etc. etc.

I would really like to discuss ways around these problems, although it might warrant a new thread.

Yeah, one of these days, I intend to make just such a thread ("the wizard I've always wanted to play" being the working title).

For now, allow me to comment that some of these are solved problems. For example, infinite healing... that can only heal you up to half health (Dragon Shaman?). Buffs... that are only roughly as good as having a 4th party member actually contributing (can't remember the name of that board game). Etc.

No, I don't think it'd be easy to do, but I don't think it would be impossible, either.

[Draconi Redfir]

i feel like this is just going to spiral out into something simmilar to a discussion i had i think earlier this year on this fourm.

Me: "I don't really care about this game"

Person: "Wait, what? Have you not tried it? the demo is free you know."

Me: "No i haven't tried it, i'm just not interested in it at all, i don't care about it."

Person: "??? You... JUST don't care about it? nobody just "doesn't care" about it! There has to be a reason! is it the gameplay? the story? Do you not like the characters???"

Me: "No... i just don't care about it. the reason i don't care about it is because it doesn't interest me."

Person: "That doesn't make sense though! I. Need. A. Reason!"

Me: "The Reason is i don't care! Full stop! end of story! The reason for me not caring is that i don't care abouti it! at all!"

etc etc etc until the thread wound up locked.

from this exhange alone i think i know exactly what the problem is here.


Let's try a different metaphor. Let's say you and your friends are going to have a Potluck dinner together. Everybody is going to make something for the meal. You volunteer to provide dessert, and decide to make a Pie from scratch. It's hard work, but learning to cook something was the point of this potluck, and you're excited to share the result with your friends.

You arrive at the meal, and everybody has brought something they made. But, there's already a Pie there. "Oh", one of your Friends says "Yeah, I was at the store getting ingredients for my dish and I saw this pie. It looked really tasty so I went ahead and bought it".
Their pie is just as good, if not better, than your pie (it's made by a professional, after all). Had you known they were going to just buy a pie, you could have made something else. You gave up the chance to bring something else, say, brownies, because you wanted to make a Pie. As far as the meal goes, they've contributed everything you contributed and more.

Everybody else gets the fun of sharing their dish with the group, but you have to compare your dish with they pie your friend brought.



Having a professionally made pie to compare mine against - especially the ways in which my pie is inferior - would be viewed as a bonus, for me. It optimizes my opportunities to learn. Having a disproportionate number of pies, OTOH, is suboptimal. We may need to work harder to optimize the pot luck experience in the future.


Quertus, i think the reason you don't understand why some people don't like "i win" buttons is that you're fully incapable of understanding, your mind is just hardwired a completely different way. We keep trying to make you understand that when we spend a lot of time and effort specializing into something, and then someone else comes in able to do it just as well if not better then us with almost no time or effort spent, we feel like ship.

Whereas with you, it seems that all you see is "okay great, now we are more optimal, we don't NEED to spend all that time and effort now! we can be more efficiant and more powerful for it!"

You're trying to understand something that has nothing to do with game mechanics, using a mindset that is only programed to understand game mechanics. The reason the seccond pie upsets us isn't because now we have too many pies, but because we were supposed to be the only pie, the pie was our thing and everyone knew that, and rather then let us be the pie-guy, they just went and bought annother pie with none of the effort we went into.

I think our brains are just too different for you to understand what we are saying. i don't think there is any way we CAN explain why being rendered obsolite is PAINFUL to us.

[Forum Explorer]

... #1 sounds like how they were poorly implemented, rather than anything inherently bad about win buttons themselves.

#2 sounds like a lot of problems (I'm quick to jump on problems with the GM, personally), but you've even labeled it as a problem with the system. Now, the GM clearly had a problem with the ability, and no skill at dealing with it. But it's hard to say whether that's a problem with the system, the GM, or the existence of the ability itself.

So, my question is, if win buttons had what you would consider an appropriate price tag, would you still have any problems with them?

Win buttons are fundamentally a game system flaw. When they are a problem, that is.

The GM has and is learning to be a better GM, it is an ongoing process and one that is never quite done. Overall I'd say they're a good GM though, and they've improved even more since the start of the game. But I do think teleporting being available at level 1, and teleport defenses not being available until much later is a pretty systematic flaw. The GM pretty much has to use rule 0 in order to 'fix' the problem in that case.


No, but I wouldn't really consider it a win button then. It would either be a win process (you've put a lot of time and effort into it, either by developing the character, gathering resources, or setting things up so that you simply 'win'.), or just a button (you can win for this obstacle, but suffer meaningful penalties in order to do so.)

As an example of the latter; in the same system we've got a character who has the ability to substitute her highest ranking skill for any skill test. Her highest ranking skill is over 100, in a system where you need to roll a d100 and try and get under your skill score. However, she can only do so 3 times a day. And because she got that one skill so high, all her other skills are really low, so when she isn't using that skill or ability she has trouble succeeding at anything.

[Talakeal]

Depends on your definition of "attack". See 5E thread.
.

I don't get the joke. Care to post a link?


[My point still stands that someone not liking high level play doesn't make the game wrong.

The thing is, D&D isn't really balanced at any level. The "win buttons" are available right from the start for certain builds (particular if you abuse certain magic items), and for most classes outside of the T1s aren't available even at end game.

[Pex]

Win buttons are fundamentally a game system flaw. When they are a problem, that is.

The GM has and is learning to be a better GM, it is an ongoing process and one that is never quite done. Overall I'd say they're a good GM though, and they've improved even more since the start of the game. But I do think teleporting being available at level 1, and teleport defenses not being available until much later is a pretty systematic flaw. The GM pretty much has to use rule 0 in order to 'fix' the problem in that case.




Interesting. I actually have this in my Pathfinder game. I'm playing an arcanist and can spend a resource point to teleport up to 10 ft per level without provoking AoO counting as 5 ft of movement. I started at 3rd level with that ability and am now 5th. I admit I have not used it a lot, but I have used it to get into a better position for attack, get out of melee to save my squishy self, and cross a river onto an island to get the treasure. The DM hasn't shown any displeasure about it. I'm not intentionally trying not to abuse it but rather I've only used it when I needed it, and I hadn't needed it that often.

I don't doubt your friend had issues with it, and I don't mean to imply BadDM (tm). It could be a matter of experience. My DM is used to the power level Pathfinder can bring, so the fact that I have teleporting ability so early doesn't phase him. For the record, I admit I was shocked myself when I first read the class description that the class could get "dimension door" so early and often if he spends the points on it. That's a doozy even for Pathfinder. In any case, when a DM reaches these win buttons that he can't handle and bans them away or ends the campaign by then, he'll never learn to deal with them to make them not be win buttons anymore. He needs to keep playing, make his mistakes, and eventually he'll figure out how to work with them instead of them against him.

[Darth Ultron]

This only applies if the GM has some level of world consistency, admittedly. If things scale with you Oblivion-style then every challenge stays equally relevant. But at that point, why even have multiple levels, much less twenty of them?

Not sure what ''oblivion style'' is, but the world should ''scale up '' with the PC's. At higher levels the PC's should be trying to do bigger and harder things. So 15th level PC's should not be trying to sneak past foes that have ''Spot+2'' or fight a foe that has ''AC 14'' or ''Hp 11''.

So like 1st level is orc warrior bandits with clubs.....15th level is ghost phase spider warlocks with transdeminsional blasting rods.


i when we spend a lot of time and effort specializing into something, and then someone else comes in able to do it just as well if not better then us with almost no time or effort spent, we feel like ship.



Ok, so the basic idea makes sense: you spend time and effort to do X, and don't like when someone does nothing and does X. That is very basic.

But how does this apply to the game? Like if player A takes ''time and effort'' to make a sneaky character with a complex build are you saying you would not like the player that did not make a build but just had an ''easy'' sneaky character like say a pixie or invisible stalker?

[Quertus]

Quertus, i think the reason you don't understand why some people don't like "i win" buttons is that you're fully incapable of understanding, your mind is just hardwired a completely different way.

That is a distinct possibility.


We keep trying to make you understand that when we spend a lot of time and effort specializing into something, and then someone else comes in able to do it just as well if not better then us with almost no time or effort spent, we feel like ship.

Whereas with you, it seems that all you see is "okay great, now we are more optimal, we don't NEED to spend all that time and effort now! we can be more efficiant and more powerful for it!"

You're trying to understand something that has nothing to do with game mechanics, using a mindset that is only programed to understand game mechanics. The reason the seccond pie upsets us isn't because now we have too many pies, but because we were supposed to be the only pie, the pie was our thing and everyone knew that, and rather then let us be the pie-guy, they just went and bought annother pie with none of the effort we went into.

I think our brains are just too different for you to understand what we are saying. i don't think there is any way we CAN explain why being rendered obsolite is PAINFUL to us.

Rendered obsolete is a thing. One can render a mech design obsolete by designing a better mech (it's not hard - most of the published designs are ****). I get the concept, and realize that different people have different ideas about where the line between cross training for redundancy and obsoleting one's niche lives. While I may quibble about where it's healthy to draw that line (and have experience with and prefer parties with double-digit players, making the concept almost moot at times), I'll take a much harder stance on the fact that there is nothing inherent in obsolescence to require win buttons in order to instantiate it. Thus, talk of disliking win buttons because of obsolescence does nothing to explain (to me, at least) why win buttons are conceptually distasteful, only why a specific implementation may be problematic. Especially because of your stated assumption that win buttons are both easy to acquire and somehow cheaper than non-win buttons - something not inherent to win buttons, and certainly not the case in all systems.

The notion of "supposed to be"...may mean different things to us. Armus is supposed to be a tactical genius. That doesn't change just because someone else in the party has good tactics. Armus is supposed to be weak. That doesn't really change if everyone else in the party is weak (although I did have some difficulty adjusting my expectations as he hit double digits, and we got a new crop of first levels). Him being a weak tactical genius certainly lends itself to certain roles in the party, but I didn't build the character insisting on those roles. Some of those roles he played, some he did not. This did not make him any less himself.

Or, to put it another way, in Mutants and Masterminds, you could spend a decent chunk of points to build a martial artist / Batman / marksman with incredible combat skill, who almost always hits his foes. Very few things in your weight class could repeatedly avoid your attacks outside of fluke luck. Then another player could build a character with seeking missiles which will eventually hit, and someone else could build a psychokinetic, which doesn't even need to roll, as their powers hit automatically. Do these characters, by also having ways to hit, somehow invalidate the fact that your character is an extremely skilled combatant? Is your character somehow made any less himself by their existence?

But I suspect that the disconnect may come in when it is argued that people choosing to do things which are demonstrably detrimental to their fun is a reason to invoke the game equivalent of legal paternalism to protect them from themselves rather than admit it's a problem with the user, not the rules. "That hurts - don't do that" seems like one of the most fundamental lessons one could learn.

[Koo Rehtorb]

To go back to the original question real quick:

Knock and Invisibility are not win buttons. They're potentially examples of bad game design, but they're not win buttons.

Imagine if you were playing Monopoly and one of the Community Chest cards was "You Win the Game". That's a more accurate analogy. If you don't see how that wouldn't be fun, then, well, I don't think you're going to understand.

[Forum Explorer]

Interesting. I actually have this in my Pathfinder game. I'm playing an arcanist and can spend a resource point to teleport up to 10 ft per level without provoking AoO counting as 5 ft of movement. I started at 3rd level with that ability and am now 5th. I admit I have not used it a lot, but I have used it to get into a better position for attack, get out of melee to save my squishy self, and cross a river onto an island to get the treasure. The DM hasn't shown any displeasure about it. I'm not intentionally trying not to abuse it but rather I've only used it when I needed it, and I hadn't needed it that often.

I don't doubt your friend had issues with it, and I don't mean to imply BadDM (tm). It could be a matter of experience. My DM is used to the power level Pathfinder can bring, so the fact that I have teleporting ability so early doesn't phase him. For the record, I admit I was shocked myself when I first read the class description that the class could get "dimension door" so early and often if he spends the points on it. That's a doozy even for Pathfinder. In any case, when a DM reaches these win buttons that he can't handle and bans them away or ends the campaign by then, he'll never learn to deal with them to make them not be win buttons anymore. He needs to keep playing, make his mistakes, and eventually he'll figure out how to work with them instead of them against him.

Well mine was stronger since it was 'anywhere in LoS'. And the action economy is different in the system, and I could theoretically teleport in, make several attacks, and then teleport out. Though that was expensive resource wise. But I was planning on hand delivering explosives and teleporting up to people, then teleporting them up, then teleporting myself, sans them, back to safety, and other stuff like that.

Honestly though, while the teleportation was a factor in why I dropped the character, it wasn't handled all that badly by the GM, though I think he didn't like it. A bigger problem was that the character's personality didn't mesh well with the current team and was designed for a much more violent game, when the game was much more diplomatic in nature.



Or, to put it another way, in Mutants and Masterminds, you could spend a decent chunk of points to build a martial artist / Batman / marksman with incredible combat skill, who almost always hits his foes. Very few things in your weight class could repeatedly avoid your attacks outside of fluke luck. Then another player could build a character with seeking missiles which will eventually hit, and someone else could build a psychokinetic, which doesn't even need to roll, as their powers hit automatically. Do these characters, by also having ways to hit, somehow invalidate the fact that your character is an extremely skilled combatant? Is your character somehow made any less himself by their existence?

But I suspect that the disconnect may come in when it is argued that people choosing to do things which are demonstrably detrimental to their fun is a reason to invoke the game equivalent of legal paternalism to protect them from themselves rather than admit it's a problem with the user, not the rules. "That hurts - don't do that" seems like one of the most fundamental lessons one could learn.

No, because they all had to spend those same points to do those things. Mutants and Masterminds is much better balanced in that sense, and in the sense that you are all heroes with the same amount of points. The problem comes in when there is an imbalance and the guy's win button is just one thing he can do, and it completely or almost completely outshines your concept (or at least a large part of it). 3.5 is likely the quintessential example of this, because Wizards, Druids, and Clerics will pretty much always outshine the Rangers, Fighters, and Rogues they are paired with. It takes a lot of skill and effort on the part of everyone in the game to prevent it from happening.


Honestly, I don't think anyone has a problem with the win buttons in better systems. It's when it's a symptom of game imbalance that it rankles on people's nerves. Like in Mutants and Masterminds, let's say one character can go intangible. It's an obvious 'I win' button to locked doors, but no one minds because that person paid for that ability, and it's obvious from the get go that they can do so. But when it's a matter of, 'I can choose freely from thousands of abilities, some of which completely invalidate your skills,' then the question becomes 'why am I not playing that class, when it is so much better then mine?'

And then you feel unsatisfied because you can't play what you want, you have to play something that can compete with the other guy, or else you might as well not be playing, since he can do anything you can do anyways. The system has failed to live up to it's promise that all of it's options are valid choices (not necessarily equal, but able to coexist), and you feel cheated by it. A good GM can fix it, but they shouldn't have to.

It only gets worse when the game's default setting lies to the GM about what assumptions he can make in designing his quests. D&D in particular is awful for this.

[Lacco]

@Quertus: I can try to explain how "win buttons" feel to other players (the ones who don't have them), but will need some data from you. So: pick a character you have played. And tell me, what did you like most about playing them? What was the coolest thing about them? Why do you like playing them?

EDIT: The systems I play don't usually have a single "win button". Thankfully :smallsmile:

[BWR]

To reiterate what I said last time, I don't think it is so much an issue of some people liking 'win buttons' and some people not as a matter of the definition of a 'win button'.
Some of us don't think that piddly little irrelevant spells like Knock are win buttons, and neither are useful but limited things like Fly, Invisibility or Teleport. These spells can solve a certain limited class of problems each, not every encounter. There are also countermeasures which should be fairly well known by many beings in the world, so it's not like everyone they encounter should be unprepared and unable to cope with PCs using certain abilities.

In short, expecting a ****ing locked door that can be opened with Knock to be anything minor speed bump (at best) beyond very low levels is simply not understanding the game and how it was designed to be played.

[NichG]

No, because they all had to spend those same points to do those things. Mutants and Masterminds is much better balanced in that sense, and in the sense that you are all heroes with the same amount of points. The problem comes in when there is an imbalance and the guy's win button is just one thing he can do, and it completely or almost completely outshines your concept (or at least a large part of it). 3.5 is likely the quintessential example of this, because Wizards, Druids, and Clerics will pretty much always outshine the Rangers, Fighters, and Rogues they are paired with. It takes a lot of skill and effort on the part of everyone in the game to prevent it from happening.


Honestly, I don't think anyone has a problem with the win buttons in better systems. It's when it's a symptom of game imbalance that it rankles on people's nerves. Like in Mutants and Masterminds, let's say one character can go intangible. It's an obvious 'I win' button to locked doors, but no one minds because that person paid for that ability, and it's obvious from the get go that they can do so. But when it's a matter of, 'I can choose freely from thousands of abilities, some of which completely invalidate your skills,' then the question becomes 'why am I not playing that class, when it is so much better then mine?'

And then you feel unsatisfied because you can't play what you want, you have to play something that can compete with the other guy, or else you might as well not be playing, since he can do anything you can do anyways. The system has failed to live up to it's promise that all of it's options are valid choices (not necessarily equal, but able to coexist), and you feel cheated by it. A good GM can fix it, but they shouldn't have to.

It only gets worse when the game's default setting lies to the GM about what assumptions he can make in designing his quests. D&D in particular is awful for this.

Maybe there's two separate issues here. One is basically 'there's a mismatch between expectation and reality' - the system says it's valid to play a canny, sneaky thief who gets by on their wits and agility but actually the best thieves are scholars who study the ways to become mystically unseen. This is the canonical D&D problem, where in 3.5ed famously some feats were intentionally put in specifically as trap options to reward players for gaining system mastery and learning to avoid them.

The other issue is more tricky, which is that everyone at the table has some way that they derive enjoyment from the game, and those ways may not be compatible with each other. In particular, some players specifically enjoy showing off or being impressive, some players want the other players to treat their character a certain way, etc. You have the potential for conflict when you mix together players whose enjoyment depends on the other players behaving or reacting a certain way. In that case, comparisons between characters can become important rather than the characters themselves. Everyone surely has a bit of that mentality, but some players have it much more than others, and its also context dependent and can be exacerbated if someone feels like they're being attacked. E.g. if someone says 'why did you do it that way, obviously you should play a wizard instead' then naturally the target of that criticism is going to feel attacked and is going to get the message that they should be trying to compete with other players for effectiveness. Games that make that kind of criticism easy are at much higher risk to create flareups of that kind of arms race or external valuation situation than games which are more balanced, where its harder to be wrong.

Basically, no one likes looking like an idiot or feeling like they have to defend their tastes as to what they're playing. Some games force the issue by making what would otherwise be primarily aesthetic choices easy to attack.

[Satinavian]

Yeah, one of these days, I intend to make just such a thread ("the wizard I've always wanted to play" being the working title).

For now, allow me to comment that some of these are solved problems. For example, infinite healing... that can only heal you up to half health (Dragon Shaman?). Buffs... that are only roughly as good as having a 4th party member actually contributing (can't remember the name of that board game). Etc.

No, I don't think it'd be easy to do, but I don't think it would be impossible, either.Doesn't sound promising.

Sounds like you want to balance a lot of stuff with the opportunity cost of the action used for casting. Which unfortunately is often pretty irrelevant, if the game does not consist basically of a series of combats with enforced action economy. Ok, you probably could have casting times of hours, days, weeks to make it relevant in other cases, but i am not sure that is what you want.

There are reasons most other magic systems, even those that accept strong magic use other, different costs. Manapools, fatigue systems, rare materials or risk of catastrophic fairure are the most common ones. And i think they do a good job.

If you forgoe any of those and keep casting at will, you have to either make every magic ridiculously weak or make spells so costly that you end up with "wizards" who know something like 2 spells in total in the middle of their career and the same time such at all nonmagical stuff.

(always assuming you are not going for Scion power levels or even beyond as baseline)

[Florian]

@Quertus:

Ok, let´s talk game design perspective.

Let´s assume players buy abilities for their characters and pay for them "in equal coin", meaning all abilities cost the same. Generally speaking, the abilities you buy that way should be more or less equal in use and effectiveness when they come up in actual game.

Let me give you an example based on a system I play: "Disable Device" is a skill, "Transmutation Magic" is a skill, both cost the same to level up. Casting a spell needs an activation roll based on the relevant magic skill, the result modifying how effective the spell is ging to be. In case of "Knock" you´d have to mage a "Transmutation Magic" roll to see how effective "Knock" would be when used to modify your intended "Disable Device" check.
So either the caster has to invest more (learning the Disable Device skill, too) or cast "Knock" on the rogue so he can be better with traps.

Now contrast that to basic D&D. A rogue can either go for the relevant skills and keep investing skill points, or go for UMD and use items and be done with it. At that point begins the slippery slope argument of why not going for a Daggerspell Mage or Unseen Seer, because all that´s left of the rogue is Sneak Attack and there´s sources to get that elsewhere.

[Draconi Redfir]

Ok, so the basic idea makes sense: you spend time and effort to do X, and don't like when someone does nothing and does X. That is very basic.

But how does this apply to the game? Like if player A takes ''time and effort'' to make a sneaky character with a complex build are you saying you would not like the player that did not make a build but just had an ''easy'' sneaky character like say a pixie or invisible stalker?

maybe not a pixie, not sure what an invisible stalker is, but if it was a guy who found a ring of / learned invisiblity and could do it at-will or somethin then yes.

basically think of it like this. two identicle twins. one is really good at climbing things, maybe supernaturally, maybe because he trained really hard. the other one can fly. he just flies. maybe he opened a book and learned how to fly from it, but he can fly.

Climbing guy's ability isn't really useful now, so he is suffering from his brother having the "i win button"

comparison could be made with angel summoner and BMX bandit. BMX wants to work as a team and use his BMX skills to save the day alongside angel summoner, while angel summoner just points that literally everything BMX wants to do can be done in half the time using the summoned angels. BMX really doesn't even need to be there.

[Florian]

Not sure what ''oblivion style'' is, but the world should ''scale up '' with the PC's. At higher levels the PC's should be trying to do bigger and harder things. So 15th level PC's should not be trying to sneak past foes that have ''Spot+2'' or fight a foe that has ''AC 14'' or ''Hp 11''.

So like 1st level is orc warrior bandits with clubs.....15th level is ghost phase spider warlocks with transdeminsional blasting rods.

Ok, so the basic idea makes sense: you spend time and effort to do X, and don't like when someone does nothing and does X. That is very basic.

But how does this apply to the game? Like if player A takes ''time and effort'' to make a sneaky character with a complex build are you saying you would not like the player that did not make a build but just had an ''easy'' sneaky character like say a pixie or invisible stalker?

"Oblivion Style" is gaming solely focused on the "balanced encounter" and the world outside out that doesn´t really exist or matter.

The only thing that achieves is creating the illusion of progress and power. I.e. when for every +1 to hit and +2 to damage a character gets, the opposition gains +1 AC and +2 hp. Extending that, it´s when invisibility meets see invisibility and teleport meets dimensional lock. Only in the short gaps in-between does the new power really matter.

And that leads to your second point. The "easy" sneaky character is countered by the equally "easy" NPC with see invisibility. That would mean that the pixie and the regular rogue are now en par again, as they need regular stealth. This renders a lot of the things discussed here moot, as people advocating that the gm should adapt the challenges to the magic apparently don´t realize what it means when the gm does and wins that "arms race", how futile this all will be then.

Edit: There´s that good example of the 100ft. vertical shaft with the three dispel magic traps to counter spider climb/levitate/fly.

[Darth Ultron]

basically think of it like this. two identicle twins. one is really good at climbing things, maybe supernaturally, maybe because he trained really hard. the other one can fly. he just flies. maybe he opened a book and learned how to fly from it, but he can fly.

Climbing guy's ability isn't really useful now, so he is suffering from his brother having the "i win button"


This just sounds like comparing mismatched abilities that can never be equal. For a weapon a gun is better then a rock; it just is. You can't complain that a rock should be equal to a gun, that makes no sense.


"Oblivion Style" is gaming solely focused on the "balanced encounter" and the world outside out that doesn´t really exist or matter.


Well, it is a game and not reality.


Honestly, I don't think anyone has a problem with the win buttons in better systems. It's when it's a symptom of game imbalance that it rankles on people's nerves.
It only gets worse when the game's default setting lies to the GM about what assumptions he can make in designing his quests. D&D in particular is awful for this.

I guess by better your talking ''more simple'' or ''direct'' or even ''the system is made so that all the players are always equal, at least in the minds of the game creators, no matter what they do."

Like say a game had characters that got 5 skill points, and that was it and there were no other in game bonuses. So all hard locks would be 5's, and only a character that put all of their skill points into ''Open Locks'' could open a 5 lock. So, only, a hard core dedicated sneaky thief type character would ever put all five of their skill points in open locks. So the player can sit back and be ''king of the lock pickers'' in the game, forever (as long as everyone plays), as other players put skill points in other things and there is no way to ever increase the skill points or bonuses. So no one can touch ''king lock picker'' ever, unless someone makes a new character and the group then has two sneaky thief type characters. And this type of game is good as it also ''forces'' the players to use the rules and ''nothing'' can be done about it. The rule on page six says ''X'' and everyone nods and says ''all hail the rules.''

A lot of games, like D&D, are not like that. Starting with 3E and beyond there are dozens of ways to build and get bonuses to a skill or ability. So things in this game world can't be Static like the other game. All locks in the game world can't be 5, when a character can have 5-15 skill points that they add to a 1d20 roll. So in D&D things scale up, poor locks, average locks, hard locks and so on. The player characters can get lots of bonuses and aids, and so can the foes. So it will always be a mix.

And it's not like ''the whole world advances''. It more like ''the poor goblin shack has a poor lock DC 10, but the 15th level player character will never have a reason to break into the poor goblin shack anyway. But yes when the player character tries to pick the lock on the back door of the Drow Temple of Doom deep in the Underdark, they will find the lock of excellent quality and full of dark drow magic and traps DC 45...plus the magic and traps.

[Pex]

"Oblivion Style" is gaming solely focused on the "balanced encounter" and the world outside out that doesn´t really exist or matter.

The only thing that achieves is creating the illusion of progress and power. I.e. when for every +1 to hit and +2 to damage a character gets, the opposition gains +1 AC and +2 hp. Extending that, it´s when invisibility meets see invisibility and teleport meets dimensional lock. Only in the short gaps in-between does the new power really matter.

And that leads to your second point. The "easy" sneaky character is countered by the equally "easy" NPC with see invisibility. That would mean that the pixie and the regular rogue are now en par again, as they need regular stealth. This renders a lot of the things discussed here moot, as people advocating that the gm should adapt the challenges to the magic apparently don´t realize what it means when the gm does and wins that "arms race", how futile this all will be then.

Edit: There´s that good example of the 100ft. vertical shaft with the three dispel magic traps to counter spider climb/levitate/fly.

Adapting to the power doesn't have to mean countering them. It's not every BBEG needs see invisibility. It's the fact that he has so many minions that you need invisibility to get by them without sounding the alarm because there are too many of them to fight. Yes, the lich will have anti-teleport defenses. However, adapting to Teleport could mean now the party can get to the top of the Mountain Of There Be Treasure Here they've been hearing about as stories and legends since level 1. The party can get to places they couldn't before. However, it needs to also be that such places weren't absolutely crucial to get to because then Teleport becomes a tax. In this situation, had the wizard not taken and cast Teleport the party would have gotten there anyway via NPC or portal, so all the DM did was deprive the character of a spell slot that day for no reason other than to deprive the player of a spell slot.

[Quertus]

But I do think teleporting being available at level 1, and teleport defenses not being available until much later is a pretty systematic flaw.

This is system dependent. Most superhero games have teleport available from "level 1", and few of them have counters at all. Death is a revolving door in some systems. Etc. So, no, I can't just blindly agree that what you describe in an unknown system in an unknown setting is a problem.


No, but I wouldn't really consider it a win button then. It would either be a win process (you've put a lot of time and effort into it, either by developing the character, gathering resources, or setting things up so that you simply 'win'.), or just a button (you can win for this obstacle, but suffer meaningful penalties in order to do so.)

Um, I was discussing neither, merely suggesting a scenario where the win button costs more build points than the not-win button. Turning invisible at will costs more build points than stealth, flight at will costs more build points than climb, etc.


As an example of the latter; in the same system we've got a character who has the ability to substitute her highest ranking skill for any skill test. Her highest ranking skill is over 100, in a system where you need to roll a d100 and try and get under your skill score. However, she can only do so 3 times a day. And because she got that one skill so high, all her other skills are really low, so when she isn't using that skill or ability she has trouble succeeding at anything.

Best reason for a 5-minute work day ever! To do list: cure cancer, win lottery, get Angelina Jolie's number, take nap.


To go back to the original question real quick:

Knock and Invisibility are not win buttons. They're potentially examples of bad game design, but they're not win buttons.

Imagine if you were playing Monopoly and one of the Community Chest cards was "You Win the Game". That's a more accurate analogy. If you don't see how that wouldn't be fun, then, well, I don't think you're going to understand.

Well, they are, IME, among the most discussed of "win buttons", IME. As I've said, the fact that we seem to use different definitions is a reason why win buttons may receive undue flak.

Oh, and to my chagrin, I've played games with people - and, worse, games made by people - who would consider your win button mechanic quite fun. :smallannoyed:


No, because they all had to spend those same points to do those things. Mutants and Masterminds is much better balanced in that sense, and in the sense that you are all heroes with the same amount of points. The problem comes in when there is an imbalance and the guy's win button is just one thing he can do, and it completely or almost completely outshines your concept (or at least a large part of it). 3.5 is likely the quintessential example of this, because Wizards, Druids, and Clerics will pretty much always outshine the Rangers, Fighters, and Rogues they are paired with. It takes a lot of skill and effort on the part of everyone in the game to prevent it from happening.

Honestly, I don't think anyone has a problem with the win buttons in better systems. It's when it's a symptom of game imbalance that it rankles on people's nerves. Like in Mutants and Masterminds, let's say one character can go intangible. It's an obvious 'I win' button to locked doors, but no one minds because that person paid for that ability, and it's obvious from the get go that they can do so. But when it's a matter of, 'I can choose freely from thousands of abilities, some of which completely invalidate your skills,' then the question becomes 'why am I not playing that class, when it is so much better then mine?'

And then you feel unsatisfied because you can't play what you want, you have to play something that can compete with the other guy, or else you might as well not be playing, since he can do anything you can do anyways. The system has failed to live up to it's promise that all of it's options are valid choices (not necessarily equal, but able to coexist), and you feel cheated by it. A good GM can fix it, but they shouldn't have to.

It only gets worse when the game's default setting lies to the GM about what assumptions he can make in designing his quests. D&D in particular is awful for this.

Yeah, this is why I'm so adamant about distinguishing hate for system imbalance from actual hate for win buttons. I'm only concerned with the latter. Win buttons get a lot of undue flak because of certain systems.


@Quertus: I can try to explain how "win buttons" feel to other players (the ones who don't have them), but will need some data from you. So: pick a character you have played. And tell me, what did you like most about playing them? What was the coolest thing about them? Why do you like playing them?

EDIT: The systems I play don't usually have a single "win button". Thankfully :smallsmile:

I often try to quantify and qualify "fun", with limited success. But, best guess:

Armus
Armus had one of my richest backstories, informing almost every aspect of play, making him "fit like a glove" straight out of the box. Armus' personality was easy for me to play and portray under the most diverse set of conditions (and, happily, as he was played initially in a rotating GM game, he was subjected to said diverse set of conditions).

Armus was a brilliant tactician, and, by virtue both of his intentionally terrible build, and the fact that he joined a 7th level party at level 1, had ample opportunity to demonstrate his "success through tactics" rather than the easier to accomplish "success through power" - even if the number of other players who comprehended what Armus had done was generally somewhere between "few" and "none". Emphasis on the "none". Armus' lack of power continued with him collecting many items of sentimental value: this sword was a gift from a now-deceased Dwarven king; that sword was a gift from a celestial being he rescued; this staff he looted off his own corpse; this belt he fashioned from the skin of a snake that dared to disturb his slumber on the eve of negotiations, etc. Although few of Armus' items were even remotely above the top 50% side of optimal, almost every item on his sheet has a cool memory attached to it.

Armus' capabilities and items give him a diverse toolkit of options. He can custom-tailor his actions to the situation, enhancing the feel of Armus as a brilliant tactician. And, in so doing, "never play an ace when a deuce will do" further emphasizes the feel of success through tactics rather than success through power.

Armus made numerous memorable blunders (quite intentionally on my part). One of my favorites was the party's introduction to a new village. A child saw us, took one look, and ran. Armus: "Jabba, fetch". When Jabba returned with the child, Armus informed the child that he had nothing to fear, we weren't monsters. "This was Jabba, he was an ogre. Can you say ogre? Good. And this is Shaele, she's a (wait, I don't know what the **** she is)... Shaele monster." Armus had to think fast to recover from that one.

Armus has... an interesting moral outlook. Armus was party scout in no small part so that he could "protect the party from the truths that would destroy them". Armus often shouldered the burden of knowledge alone.

Armus was a schemer and planner. Without telling anyone what his plans were, many of them came to fruition - some of which took the course of the entire campaign to bear fruit. So he clearly came by his victories honest, as the GMs didn't even know what he was planning.

A deeply religious individual, when religion turned political, Armus eventually became party leader, party diplomat, and, despite not being a cleric, high priest of his religion. This put Armus completely out of his depth again, adding to the thrill of "and just how will Armus get himself out of this one" once again, despite having advanced significantly in level by then.

Oh, and Armus had cool style and outfits. That's always a bonus.


To reiterate what I said last time, I don't think it is so much an issue of some people liking 'win buttons' and some people not as a matter of the definition of a 'win button'.
Some of us don't think that piddly little irrelevant spells like Knock are win buttons, and neither are useful but limited things like Fly, Invisibility or Teleport. These spells can solve a certain limited class of problems each, not every encounter. There are also countermeasures which should be fairly well known by many beings in the world, so it's not like everyone they encounter should be unprepared and unable to cope with PCs using certain abilities.

In short, expecting a ****ing locked door that can be opened with Knock to be anything minor speed bump (at best) beyond very low levels is simply not understanding the game and how it was designed to be played.

Yeah, definitions are an issue still. And some people do hate on Knock as a win button.


Maybe there's two separate issues here. One is basically 'there's a mismatch between expectation and reality' - the system says it's valid to play a canny, sneaky thief who gets by on their wits and agility but actually the best thieves are scholars who study the ways to become mystically unseen. This is the canonical D&D problem, where in 3.5ed famously some feats were intentionally put in specifically as trap options to reward players for gaining system mastery and learning to avoid them.

The other issue is more tricky, which is that everyone at the table has some way that they derive enjoyment from the game, and those ways may not be compatible with each other. In particular, some players specifically enjoy showing off or being impressive, some players want the other players to treat their character a certain way, etc. You have the potential for conflict when you mix together players whose enjoyment depends on the other players behaving or reacting a certain way. In that case, comparisons between characters can become important rather than the characters themselves. Everyone surely has a bit of that mentality, but some players have it much more than others, and its also context dependent and can be exacerbated if someone feels like they're being attacked. E.g. if someone says 'why did you do it that way, obviously you should play a wizard instead' then naturally the target of that criticism is going to feel attacked and is going to get the message that they should be trying to compete with other players for effectiveness. Games that make that kind of criticism easy are at much higher risk to create flareups of that kind of arms race or external valuation situation than games which are more balanced, where its harder to be wrong.

Basically, no one likes looking like an idiot or feeling like they have to defend their tastes as to what they're playing. Some games force the issue by making what would otherwise be primarily aesthetic choices easy to attack.

Ok, I mostly follow what you're saying, but why the **** would someone take, "it's more efficient to open a jar with a cool gripping tool" as natural criticism that they should compete with other people for effectiveness?


Doesn't sound promising.

Sounds like you want to balance a lot of stuff with the opportunity cost of the action used for casting. Which unfortunately is often pretty irrelevant, if the game does not consist basically of a series of combats with enforced action economy.

Not really. We could all build strong characters to work to lift this log, or you guys could lift it while my weak wizard contributes by buffing y'all's strength (or by hacking reality to make the log lighter). We could all build charismatic characters to work together to make convincing arguments, or I could make an anti-social assassin who preemptively kills (or provides flatulence-inducing burritos to) those who would be making strong counter-arguments. Etc. Equal contribution through different means.

[Lacco]

Ok. Now to show how "win buttons" feel if you're not the one pressing them...


Armus was a brilliant tactician, and, by virtue both of his intentionally terrible build, and the fact that he joined a 7th level party at level 1, had ample opportunity to demonstrate his "success through tactics" rather than the easier to accomplish "success through power" - even if the number of other players who comprehended what Armus had done was generally somewhere between "few" and "none". Emphasis on the "none". Armus' lack of power continued with him collecting many items of sentimental value: this sword was a gift from a now-deceased Dwarven king; that sword was a gift from a celestial being he rescued; this staff he looted off his own corpse; this belt he fashioned from the skin of a snake that dared to disturb his slumber on the eve of negotiations, etc. Although few of Armus' items were even remotely above the top 50% side of optimal, almost every item on his sheet has a cool memory attached to it.

Imagine that Armus gets no chance to show his "success through tactics" because the mage - through virtue of sheer power - always acts first, twenty times in a row, and obliterates anything Armus could work with before Armus even moves. And if it survives, the fighter stomps it into ground in the same round.

Imagine that Armus gets no items of sentimental value - because the thief just picks them first, without Armus being able to do anything about it (no chance to beat the roll - ideally, no roll allowed).


Armus was a schemer and planner. Without telling anyone what his plans were, many of them came to fruition - some of which took the course of the entire campaign to bear fruit. So he clearly came by his victories honest, as the GMs didn't even know what he was planning.

Imagine that Armus gets no schemes. Why? Well, the party uses scrying, reads minds of anyone around, and beats any check, meaning that you don't get to keep secrets. None.

And GM invalidates the whole thing by Xanatos/Batman gambit.

Can you imagine that? Would you enjoy playing such game?

Because that's how (true) "win buttons" feel from perspective of the player who does not have them. Of course, these are all extremes - not really examples of play (that would be horrible group!). Basically, someone will invalidate the "cool" part of your character - completely.

For GMs... it's easier to describe the stupid feeling of "win button". Imagine having the coolest idea for a battle - one that all your players could enjoy. A duel of wits, magic and blades, atop burning cathedral in storm, where the combatants will have to position themselves, trade lightning bolts/blows/quips to keep the enemy from reaching the artifact all while fighting for survival...

...the players assemble...

...the knight draws his new mysterious magic sword and salutes the opponents, the thief hisses an insult towards the nearest foe and prepares all his contraptions, everybody prepares to have an epic battle...

...and then the mage stops time, shields the artifact and just nukes cathedral from orbit. No rooftops, no wits, no blades, just *boooom*.

"That was easy. Got anything else...?"

[fire_insideout]

In a balanced system you don't have 'Win buttons'. They are, by definition, unbalanced, because they take what would be a challenge and removes it with little effort. I.e abilities which lets you perform greatly outside of your expected norm, both in a power width and power depth sense, can be considered 'Win buttons'.

You can't discuss 'Win buttons' without discussing poor game balancing.

Now, some people don't mind playing in poorly balanced systems (including myself), but that does not remove the core issue: Some parts of the system are vastly more powerful considering the effort to gain them compared to others. This can easily take a lot of fun out of the game, especially if you are a new player who does not understand the system's issues and therefore picks a sub-par choice.

Extra credits explains the problem of this kind of poor design well in their Marginal Mechanics and Red Herrings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_H9JR7ud8E) episode.

[NichG]

Ok, I mostly follow what you're saying, but why the **** would someone take, "it's more efficient to open a jar with a cool gripping tool" as natural criticism that they should compete with other people for effectiveness?

Because in many situations, that kind of unasked for advice is often a kind of social attack or way to score points on someone else and establish dominance. Even if the other person doesn't mean it as such and is just thinking 'I'm being helpful', it still creates a situation where the recipient is likely to feel attacked or criticized for something that to them might have been previously an aesthetic choice that they didn't think was actually subject to critique. It basically says 'other people care about your effectiveness, if you play something ineffective you're going to be judged for it'. If you're at all sensitive to social dynamics, that's going to make it hard to keep going down the road of playing things just for their own sake.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Now, some people don't mind playing in poorly balanced systems (including myself), but that does not remove the core issue: Some parts of the system are vastly more powerful considering the effort to gain them compared to others. This can easily take a lot of fun out of the game, especially if you are a new player who does not understand the system's issues and therefore picks a sub-par choice.


"Balance" in some theoretical sense doesn't mean much to me, but I certainly agree with this part. Trap options and losing at character creation are horrible things to do to anyone, but they're especially bad for newer players. Requiring "knife-edge" builds (that require optimal picks at every opportunity to stay relevant) mean that new players will usually fall far behind through no fault of their own except inexperience. This isn't good for getting new blood into a game.

[BRC]

On the subject of "Win Buttons" and System flaws.

A perfect system doesn't contain Win Buttons.


Okay, let's define some terms.

1) Challenge. Something the PCs are supposed to overcome as part of gameplay. Triumphing over a challenge is supposed to be fun and engaging, and should require some combination of clever planning, risk of failure, and expenditure of resources. Challenges could have dire consequences for failure, or merely represent opportunities for great success. Examples: A difficult social encounter. A room full of enemies. A trap, puzzle, or obstacle.

2) Win Button: A method by which a challenge can reliably be overcome without clever planning or risk of failure. Examples: Flying over a pit, using "Knock" to open a door, building a bard with a +15 to Diplomacy checks.
2a) If you have to spend considerable resources to use a win button, such that it is never optimal to do so unless other methods have failed or are impossible, then that's not really a "Win Button", it's more a "consequence" for other methods failing.
3) Egregious Win Button: An ability that serves no purpose except to function as a Win Button. This method does not open up any new opportunities, instead it simply makes what was once a challenge trivial. For example: While "Fly" and "Spider Climb" both invalidate the Climb skill, Fly opens up gameplay opportunities that would be impossible with a mere Climb check, no matter how high. Meanwhile, Spider Climb for the most part simply replaces any use of the Climb skill.


And finally, let's define a Rule. Let's call it the Shoelaces Rule: If something is not supposed to be a challenge, then don't model it as one mechanically. Don't call for a Dex check when a character tries to tie their shoelaces. That just slows the game down unnecessarily.

Simple expenditure of resources is not engaging gameplay. Not unless the resource is so dear that choosing to expend it becomes a major decision. The goal of any system is to foster engaging gameplay.

So, if there is a Challenge, and a Win Button exists for it, then using the Win Button is not engaging gameplay. By having a win button available, you've taken a chance for engaging gameplay and wasted it.

"But BRC" you say, "What about when the party outlevels a challenge?". Well, that's where the Shoelaces rule comes in. If your party has reached the point where they can trivially overcome some challenge, then don't even bother to model it mechanically. If you're okay with the party having a wand of Knock, because you don't think that locked doors should be a challenge anymore, then you might as well just let the Rogue auto-succeed on lockpicking checks, or make sure there are keys readily available for any door that would reasonably be locked. Or, make "knock" only accessible after the point where the game no longer considers locked doors to be a challenge.

Regardless, there is no scenario where including win buttons is a good design choice. Either make challenges engaging to overcome, or don't treat them as challenges.

[Quertus]

In a balanced system you don't have 'Win buttons'. They are, by definition, unbalanced, because they take what would be a challenge and removes it with little effort. I.e abilities which lets you perform greatly outside of your expected norm, both in a power width and power depth sense, can be considered 'Win buttons'.

You can't discuss 'Win buttons' without discussing poor game balancing.

And we're back to definitions again.

I've been defining them as, "things that just work", like the Knock spell - in no small part because the Knock spell receives criticism as a win button.

Although I'm apparently not alone in my usage of the phrase, even being in the majority is no guarantee of correctness. So, is there a definitive source for a definition of the term?


Ok. Now to show how "win buttons" feel if you're not the one pressing them...

Imagine that Armus gets no chance to show his "success through tactics" because the mage - through virtue of sheer power - always acts first, twenty times in a row, and obliterates anything Armus could work with before Armus even moves. And if it survives, the fighter stomps it into ground in the same round.

Imagine that Armus gets no items of sentimental value - because the thief just picks them first, without Armus being able to do anything about it (no chance to beat the roll - ideally, no roll allowed).

Imagine that Armus gets no schemes. Why? Well, the party uses scrying, reads minds of anyone around, and beats any check, meaning that you don't get to keep secrets. None.

And GM invalidates the whole thing by Xanatos/Batman gambit.

Can you imagine that? Would you enjoy playing such game?

Because that's how (true) "win buttons" feel from perspective of the player who does not have them. Of course, these are all extremes - not really examples of play (that would be horrible group!). Basically, someone will invalidate the "cool" part of your character - completely.

Armus spent most of his adventuring career trying to figure out how to contribute when he had virtually nothing but his wits to work with. And, sometimes, the battles went as you described. Yet he still contributed, tactically and strategically. For example, he would move to protect someone statistically more durable than himself before hostilities began. Even if he never got to go, he still won at demonstrating (to me) his tactical genius, even if the "success through tactics" end might not matter as much as it did.

The "no items of sentimental value" bit is actually rather difficult to imagine, unless the thief literally has the entire campaign world stuffed in his pockets, and the party is floating naked in empty space. The items might have held less than their already negligible game value at that point, and been more like the sentimental items some of my other characters have collected: the beggar's bowl, the bullet that didn't kill my friend, the first (and last) tear of the Maker of Worlds, etc.

But I think I get your point. And the last example is overkill for killing my fun. See, all it would take to have killed off that bit of enjoyment of the character is to have had an XP system where you got XP for completing stated goals. Even if the other characters never knew in character - Heck, even if we'd only had a single GM, and only the GM had known Armus' goals - just the GM knowing what I was trying to accomplish destroys my ability to enjoy "coming by my victorious honest".

The lack of scheming and "protecting them from the truths that would destroy them" would have made for a very different, and very differently interesting, game.

So, Armus' cool is resilient enough to survive at least half of the ridiculous overkill that you described (most of which I've seen in actual games, and at least one piece somewhat in Armus' games), and the concept is resilient enough to find other types of cool rather than being tied into one set concept of "this is what my character must be and must do". Which is itself no small part of why I enjoyed the character.

So, while I understand how that feels, I guess I don't understand why that feeling would get tied back into a hatred of win buttons, rather than a feeling of, "why did I bring a sentimental weak schemer into a party of mind reading insta-gibbing kleptomaniacs?"

[Draconi Redfir]

This just sounds like comparing mismatched abilities that can never be equal. For a weapon a gun is better then a rock; it just is. You can't complain that a rock should be equal to a gun, that makes no sense.

i'm not saying they should be equel. i'm saying that if one guy has a rock, and the other has a gun, then either they should both get guns or should both get rocks. or the guy with a gun could at least scale it down so it's one of those old-timey blunderbusses that had one shot and took awhile to reload.

[Tinkerer]

And we're back to definitions again.

I've been defining them as, "things that just work", like the Knock spell - in no small part because the Knock spell receives criticism as a win button.

Although I'm apparently not alone in my usage of the phrase, even being in the majority is no guarantee of correctness. So, is there a definitive source for a definition of the term?


Well it is a touch of a nebulous concept. I mean being a duck is a win button for swimming, but you don't see it getting much scorn. No, the win buttons which get the most scorn usually do one of two things. Either they allow someone to succeed in something which is outside of their usual wheelhouse, which is niche protection. Or they trivialize something which is supposed to be a major challenge, which is a balance issue. At least those are the times that I normally hear someone using the term. So no there isn't really a definition of the term since it's kinda one of those wibbly-wobbly terms.

For the first problem the obvious solutions are to either 1) restrict those win button to the classes which use them. Only give the Knock or Invisibility abilities to thieves and assassins. 2) Increase the cost of using them so they are inefficient to use as a regular ability. You recommended this a few posts back and it is one of the more popular responses. Make any spell which completely negates a skill a higher level in D&D or increase the cost in a point buy system etc... The Climb and Open Lock skills in D&D are pretty useless except at really low levels. 3) Give them a drawback. Maybe the Knock spell loudly destroys the lock making it useless for stealth. Maybe the Invisibility spell has a maximum duration of 15 seconds. Remove the part of the Fly spell where it delicately lowers you to the ground. Or 4) Increase the effectiveness of the other counterparts. Using 3.5 maybe once you hit rank 10 in Open Locks you just automatically open locks, essentially acting as a human Knock spell with a range of touch.

For the second one it usually is a poor design. If you have SoD effects in your game don't give the players an ability which allows them to bypass enemy saving throws. Abilities and counter-abilities should be coming online pretty close to each other. Basic stuff like that.

[Pex]

"But BRC" you say, "What about when the party outlevels a challenge?". Well, that's where the Shoelaces rule comes in. If your party has reached the point where they can trivially overcome some challenge, then don't even bother to model it mechanically. If you're okay with the party having a wand of Knock, because you don't think that locked doors should be a challenge anymore, then you might as well just let the Rogue auto-succeed on lockpicking checks, or make sure there are keys readily available for any door that would reasonably be locked. Or, make "knock" only accessible after the point where the game no longer considers locked doors to be a challenge.

Regardless, there is no scenario where including win buttons is a good design choice. Either make challenges engaging to overcome, or don't treat them as challenges.

Trouble is, some people hate it that the party is outleveling the challenge. They'll never accept being able to fly over a chasm to make chasm as an obstacle obsolete. They'll never accept the rogue can open any door. They're determined chasms are always obstacles and must have a chance to fail unlocking a door. They then decide to ban that which makes their must have obstacles obsolete and/or complain they're broken/ruining the game/should not exist/unbalances the game. They're not wrong for wanting chasms as obstacles and doors failing to unlock, but the reputation of a game system that denies them shouldn't be brought down because of it. The game system is not wrong either. It's just incompatible to what that person wants.

[Darth Ultron]

Because that's how (true) "win buttons" feel from perspective of the player who does not have them. Of course, these are all extremes - not really examples of play (that would be horrible group!). Basically, someone will invalidate the "cool" part of your character - completely.


But this is poor and weak game design, not really a ''win button''. Your talking about like 15th level player characters and the DM makes an adventure with CR 1 goblins that have sharp sticks. And when you get that type of mismatch, the players always win.

It's a little hard to compare characters, unless your a real roll player and you just want to count ''damage done per round'' or something like that. If your role playing a cool character, then the mechanics don't matter.

In any complicated game, like D&D, another character can always ''one up'' your character. You have a +5, they have a +6 and so forth. But that is not really a 'win' button either.

And it's not like say teleport is exactly a ''win button''. Like say there was a castle ruins full of monsters (and treasure) and had a ''pile of gold'' in the middle. Ok, so, assuming a poor, weak game a spellcaster could just teleport in and grab the gold and then be happy. So, ok, sure, they got that pile of gold.....but the folks that fight through the castle room to room get all that treasure and experience....

A 'win button' is move vs the game, then a player. Where a player, in a poor, weak game with a DM that ''won't do anything'' about it, gets something powerful and then just auto wins everything.

But still it comes back to the problem is the poor, weak game and the DM that ''won't do anything'' about it.

[Drakevarg]

But this is poor and weak game design, not really a ''win button''. Your talking about like 15th level player characters and the DM makes an adventure with CR 1 goblins that have sharp sticks. And when you get that type of mismatch, the players always win.

That has... nothing to do with what he's describing at all.


It's a little hard to compare characters, unless your a real roll player and you just want to count ''damage done per round'' or something like that. If your role playing a cool character, then the mechanics don't matter.

They do if you have nothing to do because Jim the Wizard can do it all for you.


In any complicated game, like D&D, another character can always ''one up'' your character. You have a +5, they have a +6 and so forth. But that is not really a 'win' button either.

Again, not relevant. Power discrepancy is not the same thing as trivialization.


And it's not like say teleport is exactly a ''win button''. Like say there was a castle ruins full of monsters (and treasure) and had a ''pile of gold'' in the middle. Ok, so, assuming a poor, weak game a spellcaster could just teleport in and grab the gold and then be happy. So, ok, sure, they got that pile of gold.....but the folks that fight through the castle room to room get all that treasure and experience....

XP isn't granted by the kill, it's granted by resolving a challenge. If you resolve it by finding a way to bypass it, you still get XP. And the main treasure pile is generally worth around as much as everything else in the dungeon, since otherwise it'd be more cost-effective to kill everything except the final boss, and just leave with everything else worth anything rather than bother with the tough fight.


A 'win button' is move vs the game, then a player. Where a player, in a poor, weak game with a DM that ''won't do anything'' about it, gets something powerful and then just auto wins everything.

But still it comes back to the problem is the poor, weak game and the DM that ''won't do anything'' about it.

The game has no feelings to hurt. If everyone is equally capable of casually bypassing threats, nobody's character is being reduced to nothing but moral support. At worst, it's a DM who insists on telling a story about fending off schoolyard bullies, even though the party is a squad of black ops commando. This is a problem, but is not the problem people are complaining about.

The problem is when Jim the Wizard is capable of casually bypassing threats, but Steve the Thief is just fairly good at sneaking. It is - and I can't believe nobody has brought up this comparison yet - Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.

[BWR]

The problem is when Jim the Wizard is capable of casually bypassing threats, but Steve the Thief is just fairly good at sneaking. It is - and I can't believe nobody has brought up this comparison yet - Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.

They have, you just missed it.

For the uninitiated. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)

[Forum Explorer]

This is system dependent. Most superhero games have teleport available from "level 1", and few of them have counters at all. Death is a revolving door in some systems. Etc. So, no, I can't just blindly agree that what you describe in an unknown system in an unknown setting is a problem.



Um, I was discussing neither, merely suggesting a scenario where the win button costs more build points than the not-win button. Turning invisible at will costs more build points than stealth, flight at will costs more build points than climb, etc.



Best reason for a 5-minute work day ever! To do list: cure cancer, win lottery, get Angelina Jolie's number, take nap.



Yeah, this is why I'm so adamant about distinguishing hate for system imbalance from actual hate for win buttons. I'm only concerned with the latter. Win buttons get a lot of undue flak because of certain systems.


True enough.

That falls under the first category. You've earned it, by paying more points. Unless the point costs are mismatched between the two.

He's really really good at making the 5-minute workday impossible. Besides, he'd be perfectly valid to demand skill checks for say, operating a microscope, getting the blood sample, and yadda yadda yadda, so being able to pass any 3 of the tests simply wouldn't be enough.

I think complaints about win buttons are simply a symptom of system imbalance. They aren't happy about how the system is balanced, so they point to win buttons specifically on why they are unhappy.


And we're back to definitions again.

I've been defining them as, "things that just work", like the Knock spell - in no small part because the Knock spell receives criticism as a win button.

Although I'm apparently not alone in my usage of the phrase, even being in the majority is no guarantee of correctness. So, is there a definitive source for a definition of the term?


There isn't a definitive source for the definition. The word will mean different things to different people, and there really isn't a way to change that.


T

I guess by better your talking ''more simple'' or ''direct'' or even ''the system is made so that all the players are always equal, at least in the minds of the game creators, no matter what they do."

Like say a game had characters that got 5 skill points, and that was it and there were no other in game bonuses. So all hard locks would be 5's, and only a character that put all of their skill points into ''Open Locks'' could open a 5 lock. So, only, a hard core dedicated sneaky thief type character would ever put all five of their skill points in open locks. So the player can sit back and be ''king of the lock pickers'' in the game, forever (as long as everyone plays), as other players put skill points in other things and there is no way to ever increase the skill points or bonuses. So no one can touch ''king lock picker'' ever, unless someone makes a new character and the group then has two sneaky thief type characters. And this type of game is good as it also ''forces'' the players to use the rules and ''nothing'' can be done about it. The rule on page six says ''X'' and everyone nods and says ''all hail the rules.''

A lot of games, like D&D, are not like that. Starting with 3E and beyond there are dozens of ways to build and get bonuses to a skill or ability. So things in this game world can't be Static like the other game. All locks in the game world can't be 5, when a character can have 5-15 skill points that they add to a 1d20 roll. So in D&D things scale up, poor locks, average locks, hard locks and so on. The player characters can get lots of bonuses and aids, and so can the foes. So it will always be a mix.

And it's not like ''the whole world advances''. It more like ''the poor goblin shack has a poor lock DC 10, but the 15th level player character will never have a reason to break into the poor goblin shack anyway. But yes when the player character tries to pick the lock on the back door of the Drow Temple of Doom deep in the Underdark, they will find the lock of excellent quality and full of dark drow magic and traps DC 45...plus the magic and traps.

In this case better refers to 'more balanced'. Most games aren't perfectly balanced, or are like your example all that much. But they don't really need to be. Let's look at 5th edition for example:

In it I don't really hear people complain about 'Win Buttons' so much. Knock for example is explicitly mentioned to create a very loud noise so it obviously had clear consequences for it's use, and invisibility only gives you a bonus to hiding, not making it an automatic success. Fly is very costly, and even risky to use. The game isn't perfectly balanced, and there are plenty of flaws with the game, but when it comes to 'Win Buttons', the problem is much less visible or complained about.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think complaints about win buttons are simply a symptom of system imbalance. They aren't happy about how the system is balanced, so they point to win buttons specifically on why they are unhappy.


My comments were largely about the case of the game turning into an convoluted 5d chess match of "I win buttons" and "nope you don't buttons" that matches up who prepared better for what with their save-or-die / have-defense-or-die spell prep and enchantments and items, and leaves behind any characters who can't participate.

[Forum Explorer]

My comments were largely about the case of the game turning into an convoluted 5d chess match of "I win buttons" and "nope you don't buttons" that matches up who prepared better for what with their save-or-die / have-defense-or-die spell prep and enchantments and items, and leaves behind any characters who can't participate.

And I think that bolded part is the real problem.

Would it be a problem if it was like this?

Wizard: I teleport us in:
GM: You can't, the wards block teleportation
Rogue: I use my 'Get in anywhere' ability to bypass the wards, and bring the party in.
GM: Okay. The lich soon stands before you.
Wizard: I cast disintigrate
GM: The Lich is currently immune to magic.
Fighter: I use my anti-magic sword to shatter his defenses
GM: The Lich responds by banishing you to the 9 Hells
Wizard: I cast dimensional anchor, preventing all dimensional transport.
Cleric: Then I use Smite Undead to blow up the Lich.

An over simplification, but basically victory only being possible from everyone combining their abilities to win, rather then it being the Tier 1 show.

[Max_Killjoy]

And I think that bolded part is the real problem.

Would it be a problem if it was like this?

Wizard: I teleport us in:
GM: You can't, the wards block teleportation
Rogue: I use my 'Get in anywhere' ability to bypass the wards, and bring the party in.
GM: Okay. The lich soon stands before you.
Wizard: I cast disintigrate
GM: The Lich is currently immune to magic.
Fighter: I use my anti-magic sword to shatter his defenses
GM: The Lich responds by banishing you to the 9 Hells
Wizard: I cast dimensional anchor, preventing all dimensional transport.
Cleric: Then I use Smite Undead to blow up the Lich.

An over simplification, but basically victory only being possible from everyone combining their abilities to win, rather then it being the Tier 1 show.


Notice how the GM has to no-sell the wizard's "powers" multiple times just to extend things and bring the other character's abilities into the exchange.

And then the wizard's first move that doesn't get "noped"... is the wizard slapping a "nope" on the lich's move.

[jayem]

Also it remains not very 5d chess, which personally I think would be interesting. The game that's coming into my head is Milles Bournes. Or perhaps Harry Potters quest for the Philosopher's stone each person has something to do in sequence.
A situation where you metaphorically fork, pin, skewer would be interesting.

[Telok]

Is the d&d knock spell a win button?

In ad&d a 25th level wizard can cast 5 second level spells a day and has a lifetime limit on the number of spells he can learn. It takes 20 minutes to prepare a second level spell, per spell, and there's no guarantee of wands or scrolls.
A 3.5 wizard can have 5 second level spells a day at 5th level and gets them all back in 15 minutes. For the cost of a bonus feat, 4 days of downtime, and 2000 gold he can have a full 50 charge wand of knock. Of course for much less you can get an adamantine axe for the fighter and get the same effect.
4e wizards got it as a ritual that took 10 minutes and a pittance of spare change. But they could use it at will an unlimited number of times a day.
In a supers game you don't even have a knock spell because the guy who bench presses cruise ships punches the door.

Is the ability to easily open locked doors a 'win button' or is it only problematic in particular systems. And what if the game doesn't involve locked doors as an obstacle to overcome?

[Mechalich]

Also it remains not very 5d chess, which personally I think would be interesting. The game that's coming into my head is Milles Bournes. Or perhaps Harry Potters quest for the Philosopher's stone each person has something to do in sequence.
A situation where you metaphorically fork, pin, skewer would be interesting.

You can absolutely build a game on the principle of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock. In fact that's quite sound as a starting point and something many a video game has used as a tactical basis point (Fire Emblem notably). The trick is that, if you balance the game this way you have to be very careful to keep the characters in lane. For instance, it may be balanced to have one character have Rock 5 and another have Scissors 2 and Paper 3, so long as each throws only one at once.

In this circumstance an 'I win' button is effectively something like 'Lizard Infinity' which thereby means you can now auto-defeat all Spock and Paper based challenges. Once this win button comes online, in this system, you have now eliminated 2/5ths of your available challenge options. Even if you provide enemies with immunity to Lizard, you've still undercut anyone who has Lizard not-infinite because now their ability is useless.


Is the ability to easily open locked doors a 'win button' or is it only problematic in particular systems. And what if the game doesn't involve locked doors as an obstacle to overcome?

'Win buttons' are inherently system dependent, because the issue is how they create inequalities both between members of the same party, between the party and the game world, and within the game world itself. Knock is an issue in D&D because opening locks is a thing characters in D&D care about and can invest character resources into doing. Knock is a particular issue in 3.PF D&D because that system incentivizes the '5 minute adventuring day' which means if you encounter a lock and don't have knock ready, you can do the five minute rope trick wait and then you have it.

There are other, more blatant win buttons. For example, Power Word Kill is a win button that imposes 'must have 101 Hp or SR to play' from level 17 onward.

[Forum Explorer]

Notice how the GM has to no-sell the wizard's "powers" multiple times just to extend things and bring the other character's abilities into the exchange.

And then the wizard's first move that doesn't get "noped"... is the wizard slapping a "nope" on the lich's move.

That was an example. The wizard very well could have been just the dimensional lock ability. Or it could have been only the anti-magic part with the Fighter getting the final blow, and the cleric stopping the banishment, or ect.

The point is, do you still consider it a problem if everyone is contributing, more or less equally? Or rather, if everyone has a 'win' button.

[Darth Ultron]

XP isn't granted by the kill, it's granted by resolving a challenge. If you resolve it by finding a way to bypass it, you still get XP. And the main treasure pile is generally worth around as much as everything else in the dungeon, since otherwise it'd be more cost-effective to kill everything except the final boss, and just leave with everything else worth anything rather than bother with the tough fight.

Yea, yea, 3E tries to make a big deal about ''resolving'' challenges. This for a game with a massive chapter titled ''Combat'', but no chapter titled ''Peace'' or ''Non-Violent Hug Flower Powers''.

But...if a character bypasses a challenge, they don't get XP for it. Or is that a house rule from your game? Also if a character does 'bypass' something easily, then it's not a challenge. And I guess the ''main treasure pile is generally worth around as much as everything else in the dungeon'' is another house rule of yours?



Let's look at 5th edition for example:


Well, sure after 10+ years of some people complaining the Creators said ''fine, ok, as they can't fix things their selves, we will do the work for them...sigh."



An over simplification, but basically victory only being possible from everyone combining their abilities to win, rather then it being the Tier 1 show.

It is accurate enough, and it exactly describes my type of game.

It's just as odd to me that so many games are like ''Jim the Wizard says 'I Win' " and the DM crawls under the table and is like ''ok-day''.

[Drakevarg]

Yea, yea, 3E tries to make a big deal about ''resolving'' challenges. This for a game with a massive chapter titled ''Combat'', but no chapter titled ''Peace'' or ''Non-Violent Hug Flower Powers''.

But...if a character bypasses a challenge, they don't get XP for it. Or is that a house rule from your game? Also if a character does 'bypass' something easily, then it's not a challenge. And I guess the ''main treasure pile is generally worth around as much as everything else in the dungeon'' is another house rule of yours?

If you sneak past a threat somehow, it counts as a resolution. Obviously if you just teleported from your living room straight to the treasure and back out, there was never a challenge to begin with, on the other hand.

As for the treasure thing, that's just sensible game design. If the rewards (loot-wise or story-wise) of just clearing out a bunch of mooks are equal or greater than trying to take on a boss that is deliberately supposed to be a challenging encounter, why bother with the risk? To steal a line from Mass Effect: "No credit for partial answers, maggot."

[RazorChain]

What I don't like about win button is that they usually take the game in a direction I don't want it to go. The four color fantasy superhero game.

I don't want my games about kicking the crap out of rats and then progressing to bigger things until you are brawling with gods. It get's worse than a superhero game, Nightcrawler has teleportation, Jean Grey has telekinesis and telepathy, Cyclops is a blaster, The invisible man is invisible, Falcon can fly and control birds. Then you have the D&D wizard that can do it all and probably better. I'm trying to run a fantasy game and when one character gets loaded with superpowers then I have to bring out supervillains or my game is obsolete. Then I end up running a superhero game in fantasy setting and I didn't want that.


This is why I keep clear from the systems that present those buttons unless I'm going to run a superhero game.

Win buttons are only a problem when they shouldn't be there. The challenges in a superhero game are vastly different than in a fantasy game. The problem is when the GM is picturing usual fantasy setting he's going to run with the Aragons, Madmartigans, Willows, Gimlis etc. Then as the game progresses he's suddenly running a supers game where one or two characters get ALL the cool powers. And the rest are like the shoveler in Mystery Men "Lucille, God gave me a gift. I shovel well. I shovel very well."

This may make it hard for the GM to transition from the fresh faced adventurers to superhero. It's like starting as Luke, a fresh farm boy who learns he has force powers. Then in the end he's flying around in space (without a spaceship) using his force powers to disintegrate the new Death Star. It is doubly hard for the GM if he hasn't foreseen the power escalation and how to tackle the superpowers and keep the game fun for Han Solo and Chewbacca.

[Cluedrew]

And the rest are like the shoveler in Mystery Men "Lucille, God gave me a gift. I shovel well. I shovel very well."I know nothing about this character except this quote, and I want to turn this quote into a character now.

While we are talking... I have no idea what you would call it. Anyways, the win button like powers do exist in fantasy settings, however they almost always belong to villains or plot device characters, never the hero themselves. The hero is the fighter or ranger more often than not.

[Forum Explorer]

Well, sure after 10+ years of some people complaining the Creators said ''fine, ok, as they can't fix things their selves, we will do the work for them...sigh."



It is accurate enough, and it exactly describes my type of game.

It's just as odd to me that so many games are like ''Jim the Wizard says 'I Win' " and the DM crawls under the table and is like ''ok-day''.

Well yeah. I call that doing their bloody job. :smalltongue:

[Darth Ultron]

If you sneak past a threat somehow, it counts as a resolution. Obviously if you just teleported from your living room straight to the treasure and back out, there was never a challenge to begin with, on the other hand.

You make it sound like if a character avoids a threat or ''sneaks past it'' gets full XP for that encounter? Is this like a video game where the character can ''avoid and sneak past'' a monster and get XP each time?



As for the treasure thing, that's just sensible game design. If the rewards (loot-wise or story-wise) of just clearing out a bunch of mooks are equal or greater than trying to take on a boss that is deliberately supposed to be a challenging encounter, why bother with the risk? To steal a line from Mass Effect: "No credit for partial answers, maggot."

Guess this is true if your Roll Playing a video game like adventure.


What I don't like about win button is that they usually take the game in a direction I don't want it to go.


This is a typical problem with ''win buttons''.

Super hero games might be the worst. Super hero's are just given way too much power, then a writer twists the story so the hero ''can't'' use their power.....but, um, still could in like a thousand ways. But does not.

[Tinkerer]

You make it sound like if a character avoids a threat or ''sneaks past it'' gets full XP for that encounter? Is this like a video game where the character can ''avoid and sneak past'' a monster and get XP each time?


No it's like a Role Playing game where you can "avoid and sneak past" and get XP. I'd say that 90% of all RPGs that I've read (including the majority of D&D editions) flat out state that you don't have to kill the monster to get XP for them, you need to pass the challenge. You could defeat them in combat, negotiate with them, sneak past them, or banish them to the 9th level of hell. The early editions of D&D were based on the treasure. Palladium is based mainly around plans. Savage Worlds is based around what you accomplish. Very very few RPGs state that you need to engage in combat to gain exp. They do this to encourage role playing as opposed to roll playing. This isn't some house rule or anything like that, this is something fundamental to the game.

[Lord Raziere]

Well yeah. I call that doing their bloody job. :smalltongue:

A GM's "job" is just say "ok" and be utterly passive and submissive to whatever you come up with?

Why don't you just rename the position to "yes man" while your at it?

[Quertus]

On the subject of "Win Buttons" and System flaws.

A perfect system doesn't contain Win Buttons.


Okay, let's define some terms.

1) Challenge. Something the PCs are supposed to overcome as part of gameplay. Triumphing over a challenge is supposed to be fun and engaging, and should require some combination of clever planning, risk of failure, and expenditure of resources. Challenges could have dire consequences for failure, or merely represent opportunities for great success. Examples: A difficult social encounter. A room full of enemies. A trap, puzzle, or obstacle.

2) Win Button: A method by which a challenge can reliably be overcome without clever planning or risk of failure. Examples: Flying over a pit, using "Knock" to open a door, building a bard with a +15 to Diplomacy checks.
2a) If you have to spend considerable resources to use a win button, such that it is never optimal to do so unless other methods have failed or are impossible, then that's not really a "Win Button", it's more a "consequence" for other methods failing.
3) Egregious Win Button: An ability that serves no purpose except to function as a Win Button. This method does not open up any new opportunities, instead it simply makes what was once a challenge trivial. For example: While "Fly" and "Spider Climb" both invalidate the Climb skill, Fly opens up gameplay opportunities that would be impossible with a mere Climb check, no matter how high. Meanwhile, Spider Climb for the most part simply replaces any use of the Climb skill.


And finally, let's define a Rule. Let's call it the Shoelaces Rule: If something is not supposed to be a challenge, then don't model it as one mechanically. Don't call for a Dex check when a character tries to tie their shoelaces. That just slows the game down unnecessarily.

Simple expenditure of resources is not engaging gameplay. Not unless the resource is so dear that choosing to expend it becomes a major decision. The goal of any system is to foster engaging gameplay.

So, if there is a Challenge, and a Win Button exists for it, then using the Win Button is not engaging gameplay. By having a win button available, you've taken a chance for engaging gameplay and wasted it.

"But BRC" you say, "What about when the party outlevels a challenge?". Well, that's where the Shoelaces rule comes in. If your party has reached the point where they can trivially overcome some challenge, then don't even bother to model it mechanically. If you're okay with the party having a wand of Knock, because you don't think that locked doors should be a challenge anymore, then you might as well just let the Rogue auto-succeed on lockpicking checks, or make sure there are keys readily available for any door that would reasonably be locked. Or, make "knock" only accessible after the point where the game no longer considers locked doors to be a challenge.

Regardless, there is no scenario where including win buttons is a good design choice. Either make challenges engaging to overcome, or don't treat them as challenges.

This definition assumes that things are "supposed to" be something. Works for railroads, less so for sandboxes.


Is the d&d knock spell a win button?

In ad&d a 25th level wizard can cast 5 second level spells a day and has a lifetime limit on the number of spells he can learn. It takes 20 minutes to prepare a second level spell, per spell, and there's no guarantee of wands or scrolls.
A 3.5 wizard can have 5 second level spells a day at 5th level and gets them all back in 15 minutes. For the cost of a bonus feat, 4 days of downtime, and 2000 gold he can have a full 50 charge wand of knock. Of course for much less you can get an adamantine axe for the fighter and get the same effect.
4e wizards got it as a ritual that took 10 minutes and a pittance of spare change. But they could use it at will an unlimited number of times a day.
In a supers game you don't even have a knock spell because the guy who bench presses cruise ships punches the door.

Is the ability to easily open locked doors a 'win button' or is it only problematic in particular systems. And what if the game doesn't involve locked doors as an obstacle to overcome?

First, I have a difficult time imagining a game with doors that doesn't / couldn't involve locked doors... Or a game that doesn't involve doors, for that matter. Easier for me to picture a game that didn't include air.

I defined win buttons as things that just work. Knock just opens doors, Invisibility says you just can't be seen, etc. I'm growing less and less certain that this definition is a) held by the majority of those who use the term; b) the "correct" definition of the term; c) the most useful thing to discuss. But I'm still fairly certain it's what I'm primarily concerned with discussing at the moment.


A GM's "job" is just say "ok" and be utterly passive and submissive to whatever you come up with?

Why don't you just rename the position to "yes man" while your at it?

When I pass Go, and say gimme my $200, yes, the banker's job is to just say yes. That's called doing their job.

[Lord Raziere]

When I pass Go, and say gimme my $200, yes, the banker's job is to just say yes. That's called doing their job.

Again, why not replace the GM with a cardboard cutout with the word bubble saying "yes" then? whats the point if the game is not going to challenge you and just let you win as if a point and click adventure? it seems you don't actually want to play a game, you just don't want to put in any effort to solve anything.

[icefractal]

It seems there are two primary reasons people don't like them, which have fairly separate criteria for which ones are a problem.

1) Intra-party imbalance.
Invisibility is bad because it overshadows stealth-based characters, but Teleport is probably fine, unless anyone invested big into overland travel.

2) Obsoletes certain types of obstacle.
Teleport is bad, but Knock is fine because the party could already get doors open.

A big difference is that infra-party imbalance can be solved just by distributing the abilities more evenly. Say the Rogue was the one who had Knock and Invisibility, for example.

[Forum Explorer]

A GM's "job" is just say "ok" and be utterly passive and submissive to whatever you come up with?

Why don't you just rename the position to "yes man" while your at it?

Wrong people. I was referring to the creators of the game. It's their jobs to create games, games that are more or less balanced, that don't require the DM to come up with elaborate fixes in order to keep the game running and prevent things from falling apart.

[Cazero]

When I pass Go, and say gimme my $200, yes, the banker's job is to just say yes. That's called doing their job.
Monopoly RAW is exhaustive. By nature, RPGs RAW cannot be exhaustive. The main gist of the GM's job is to fill up the holes in RAW. Your comparison is invalid.

[BRC]

This definition assumes that things are "supposed to" be something. Works for railroads, less so for sandboxes.



Sandboxes still contain challenges, unless you define a sandbox as "PC's wander around, automatically succeeding at whatever they try to do". The open nature of a sandbox game often leaves more room for clever solutions to challenges (Which may Trivialize a challenge, but represent a triumph on their own, since a player had to think up the solution), but they're still intended to be challenges, and an "I win" Button is still the least engaging method of dealing with said challenge.

In my experience, Sandbox applies more to the overall structure of the campaign than anything session-by-session. If the PC's decide to raid an ancient temple in a sandbox, the GM still fills the ancient temple with challenges just as if the party had been directed to raid it by a metaplot. Sandbox or no, it's still the GM's job to provide a fun, engaging adventure, a Sandbox just means the Gm doesn't provide the PC's with any real direction as to where they should take the story.


Unless you're taking the view that a "Sandbox" can't even be populated with the intent of providing opportunities for engaging gameplay, that the world should just exist, and that any fun the Players have running around in it is purely incidental. You can't fill an ancient temple with deadly traps and monsters because then if the PC's want to raid that temple, they're forced to deal with the deadly traps and monsters.

Edit: Let's say the GM is some sort of sandbox-purist. They have literally designed everything in this setting before the campaign starts, and refuses to change any of it except in response to PC action (no Quantum-Ogres). They've designed this ancient temple, and there it must stay.

Let's say the Ancient Temple is a huge tower, with the treasure mounted at the top. Anybody who wants the treasure therefore need to enter at ground level, and get through all the deadly traps and horrible monsters within until they reach the treasure at the top.

Or, they could cast Fly, bypass all the stuff inside the temple, and reach the Treasure.

In this case, "Fly" represents an I-Win button for the entire adventure. In a pure sandbox game, the GM shouldn't make this treasure a big deal for any party with access to any form of Flight (Since getting the treasure isn't a big deal). In a non-sandbox game (Doesn't mean the same thing as railroaded, but that's another discussion), the GM shouldn't send their party against this tower if they have access to Flight.

[Draconi Redfir]

It seems there are two primary reasons people don't like them, which have fairly separate criteria for which ones are a problem.

1) Intra-party imbalance.
Invisibility is bad because it overshadows stealth-based characters, but Teleport is probably fine, unless anyone invested big into overland travel.

2) Obsoletes certain types of obstacle.
Teleport is bad, but Knock is fine because the party could already get doors open.

A big difference is that infra-party imbalance can be solved just by distributing the abilities more evenly. Say the Rogue was the one who had Knock and Invisibility, for example.

there is also the story factor. i would much rather live / tell the story about how our small band of heroes fought valiently against the orcish army. felling them one by one, and acchiving victory by the skin of their teeth, over the party ENCOUNTERING the orcish army, and then casting a maximized doom appocolypse ball spell once and insta-gibbing the lot of them.

[Amphetryon]

From my reading of the evidence in the thread(s), part of the disconnect here, Quertus, is that your preference is for the majority of a Character's access to 'win' buttons to come from the Player's cleverness & tactical acumen. This, generally, makes the Player feel like she is directly responsible for the game's progress - an understandably good feeling. You build Characters (or decks) with in-game handicaps, but rely on your own tactics and math skills to minimize those handicaps, according to your own statements.

Most of those arguing with you appear to want the majority of a Character's access to 'win' buttons to come from the game's mechanics. This, generally, means that Players will become frustrated when the challenges before the Characters are resolved without allowing Players to actually use those mechanics. It also means folks might be frustrated when Character X's 'win' buttons are cheaper, or more broadly applicable, than Character Y's, because, again, those Players aren't able to use the game's mechanics. To you, by contrast, this is an opportunity to think laterally and bypass the 'win' buttons built into the system through your own intellect.

Please clarify where this is incorrect.

[BRC]

From my reading of the evidence in the thread(s), part of the disconnect here, Quertus, is that your preference is for the majority of a Character's access to 'win' buttons to come from the Player's cleverness & tactical acumen. This, generally, makes the Player feel like she is directly responsible for the game's progress - an understandably good feeling. You build Characters (or decks) with in-game handicaps, but rely on your own tactics and math skills to minimize those handicaps, according to your own statements.

Most of those arguing with you appear to want the majority of a Character's access to 'win' buttons to come from the game's mechanics. This, generally, means that Players will become frustrated when the challenges before the Characters are resolved without allowing Players to actually use those mechanics. It also means folks might be frustrated when Character X's 'win' buttons are cheaper, or more broadly applicable, than Character Y's, because, again, those Players aren't able to use the game's mechanics. To you, by contrast, this is an opportunity to think laterally and bypass the 'win' buttons built into the system through your own intellect.

Please clarify where this is incorrect.

I wouldn't call "I don't want to be seen, so I cast Invisibility" or "I want to get through this door, so I cast Knock" examples of player cleverness or tactical acumen. That's just basic comprehension of what the spells do, and those are two explicit examples that Quertus uses in the first post.

[Darth Ultron]

From my reading of the evidence in the thread(s), part of the disconnect here, Quertus, is that your preference is for the majority of a Character's access to 'win' buttons to come from the Player's cleverness & tactical acumen. This, generally, makes the Player feel like she is directly responsible for the game's progress - an understandably good feeling. You build Characters (or decks) with in-game handicaps, but rely on your own tactics and math skills to minimize those handicaps, according to your own statements.

This sounds more like just play styles being different. Like a player makes a mundane detective in D&D with the goal of not using magic, but still want to say they have the greatest all powerful detective character in the world. When they know that is not true.

Guess it would also cover the poor optimizer types that just toss a couple things together and get what they think is a ''good powerful character'', but then they can't handle a better optimizing player that comes along with something better.



Most of those arguing with you appear to want the majority of a Character's access to 'win' buttons to come from the game's mechanics. This, generally, means that Players will become frustrated when the challenges before the Characters are resolved without allowing Players to actually use those mechanics. It also means folks might be frustrated when Character X's 'win' buttons are cheaper, or more broadly applicable, than Character Y's, because, again, those Players aren't able to use the game's mechanics. To you, by contrast, this is an opportunity to think laterally and bypass the 'win' buttons built into the system through your own intellect.


I don't think 'win buttons' are built into the rules like this....again this is how people play the game.

The rules do contain balance and counters and such.....but you have to use them. Like teleport is said to be a ''in the rules win button''....but the rules do contain balance and counters and such for teleport. But too many Dm's refuse to use them. They just cross their arms and say ''nope''. Then a couple minutes later they are complaining about the win button teleports ruining their game. It's exactly like a DM saying ''there will be no locks in my world'' and then complaining that the player characters ''just open ever door and chest too easily''.





In this case, "Fly" represents an I-Win button for the entire adventure. In a pure sandbox game, the GM shouldn't make this treasure a big deal for any party with access to any form of Flight (Since getting the treasure isn't a big deal). In a non-sandbox game (Doesn't mean the same thing as railroaded, but that's another discussion), the GM shouldn't send their party against this tower if they have access to Flight.

Odd, I though sandboxy DM's did not make anything and just reacted to the PCs....maybe we should start another thread. I've always wanted to get the answer to how a sandbox DM ''does'' it, with out normal DM Agency, other then just ''saying they don't do it and then doing it anyway.''

The tower or no tower is odd to say just as the ''type'' of game.

[icefractal]

I wouldn't call "I don't want to be seen, so I cast Invisibility" or "I want to get through this door, so I cast Knock" examples of player cleverness or tactical acumen. To be fair though, it's not like "I roll Stealth" or "I roll Disable Device" are examples of player cleverness or tactical acumen either.

I think that some "win buttons" do skip what would otherwise be a more complex challenge, but for some of them it would be simple either way.

For that matter, isn't knowing languages a win button? For just one or two skill points, you speak Giant perfectly, and skip what might otherwise have been an extended challenge to communicate your message and/or find a translator.

I think that ultimately, what's a filthy win button ruining great plots and what's a normal ability that's totally reasonable to have comes down to a question of personal preference.

[BRC]

To be fair though, it's not like "I roll Stealth" or "I roll Disable Device" are examples of player cleverness or tactical acumen either.

Yes, but there is a risk/chance of failure, which makes things a bit more engaging than simply spending resources.
There's also the previously mentioned "Wizard becomes a better rogue than the Rogue" stuff.

And finally, the difficulty of scaling without hard counters. As your rogue gets stealthier, you can use more observant guards. When a wizard casts invisibility, you either just accept that the guards can't see them, or have to include some sort of hard-counter (which raises it's own problem)



I think that some "win buttons" do skip what would otherwise be a more complex challenge, but for some of them it would be simple either way.

For that matter, isn't knowing languages a win button? For just one or two skill points, you speak Giant perfectly, and skip what might otherwise have been an extended challenge to communicate your message and/or find a translator.

I think that ultimately, what's a filthy win button ruining great plots and what's a normal ability that's totally reasonable to have comes down to a question of personal preference.

Personal preference and what the game/GM considers a Challenge.

Few games bother to mechanically model the difficulties of speaking a foreign language, and so few languages consider "Communicate with this entity that doesn't speak common" to be a Challenge. Speaking that language might open up new opportunities (For example, you can now negotiate instead of fighting), but that's usually just the start of the Challenge.

But, let's say this game/adventure DID consider speaking Giant to be a major Challenge. Well, if this was a game where anybody could throw two skill points into learning Giant (or cast Tounges), then the adventure would be poorly designed, since one of it's Challenges was easily bypassed by a Win button.

It's really only a "Win" button if it applies to something the game considers a challenge. One game's Win Button could be another games "Wand of Tie Shoelaces".


Edit:

Consider the humble Ring of Sustinence. When you wear it, you don't need food or water.
In most standard heroic fantasy games, it's a nifty, but not especially valuable item, since by the time it's available you're usually well past the point where finding food or water is a challenge. You spend most of your time in towns, or with plenty of coin and space to pack more than enough trail rations and waterskins for your short stints away from civilization.

But, in a campaign focused on wilderness survival, where the threat of starvation is supposed to represent a major Challenge, then the Ring of Sustenance is a huge Win Button, and it probably shouldn't be available if the GM wants to PCs to struggle finding food.

Edit II: I have a much better example of a "Win Button" than Knock (Since opening doors is usually a fairly minor challenge). Speak With Dead. In any sort of murder mystery adventure, Speak With Dead is a huge Win Button. The whole procedure of gathering evidence and trying to piece together what happened gets wrapped up with a single spell.

Unless you design the adventure with the ASSUMPTION that the players have Speak With Dead, in which case you're options are severely limited (The victim can't know who killed them), but you've invalidated the I Win button. There's no scenario where Speak With Dead both solves the mystery on it's own AND makes the mystery fun to solve.

Similarly, if solving the mystery of who killed the guy isn't supposed to be a challenge, then it's fine.

[Quertus]

Again, why not replace the GM with a cardboard cutout with the word bubble saying "yes" then? whats the point if the game is not going to challenge you and just let you win as if a point and click adventure? it seems you don't actually want to play a game, you just don't want to put in any effort to solve anything.

Um, no, I want the effort I put into solving things to resolve in a meaningful way, according to the rules. When I move my knight onto the enemy queen, I expect the effort I put getting her into position to be rewarded by my knight taking the piece, not for the referee to declare that that clearly wasn't enough of a challenge, and change the rules on the fly to make the game "more challenging".


It seems there are two primary reasons people don't like them, which have fairly separate criteria for which ones are a problem.

1) Intra-party imbalance.
Invisibility is bad because it overshadows stealth-based characters, but Teleport is probably fine, unless anyone invested big into overland travel.

2) Obsoletes certain types of obstacle.
Teleport is bad, but Knock is fine because the party could already get doors open.

A big difference is that infra-party imbalance can be solved just by distributing the abilities more evenly. Say the Rogue was the one who had Knock and Invisibility, for example.

I probably should look at this line of thought more, but, for the moment, let me ask this: Why give invisibility to the rogue? It makes no sense.

What if the rogue got stealth by skill, but, at some point, the wizard got invisibility? What if the rogue got damage by skill, but, at some point, the fighter got "cleave you in half for all the damage"? What if the fighter got accuracy by skill, but, at some point, the rogue got "you didn't see that coming, it just hits"? What if the wizard got SoS/SoD effects (which, 2e D&D style get better as you level, but less likely to work as the opposition levels) by skill, but, at some point, the rogue gets no save "got your spleen", and on hit NSJS effects?

What if every single character's initial skill shtick gets eventually obsoleted, in part or in whole, by another character's win button? So everyone always has an equal number of roles to play, but what roles that are best suited for changes over time. How would that be received?


Monopoly RAW is exhaustive. By nature, RPGs RAW cannot be exhaustive. The main gist of the GM's job is to fill up the holes in RAW. Your comparison is invalid.

I have little issue with GMs filling in the holes in a reasonable, non-Xanatos gambit (did I spell that right?) way. I take issue with GMs changing the existing rules, like how passing go works.


Sandboxes still contain challenges, unless you define a sandbox as "PC's wander around, automatically succeeding at whatever they try to do".

I'm running a sandbox. You encounter Armus. Is he a challenge? That depends on what you are doing, what you perceive him to be doing, what he perceives you to be doing, etc. Armus has no predefined role in your story in a proper sandbox - he is what you and he make him to be. Now, Armus has his own goals, motivations, desires, and schemes, so his role in your story may well change over time.

I encounter BRC on a forum. Is he a challenge? He could be any number of things, and almost certainly will be at least several of those.

I encounter a PoV I don't understand. Is it a challenge? Yes. But what I do with that challenge is up to me.

I don't believe things should generally be intended as a challenge. There are exceptions - obstacle courses, most things in academics, targets, etc - but I don't view the platonic ideal of the majority of the world as inherently resonating "challenge". Why should a sandbox be different?


Unless you're taking the view that a "Sandbox" can't even be populated with the intent of providing opportunities for engaging gameplay, that the world should just exist, and that any fun the Players have running around in it is purely incidental. You can't fill an ancient temple with deadly traps and monsters because then if the PC's want to raid that temple, they're forced to deal with the deadly traps and monsters.

Edit: Let's say the GM is some sort of sandbox-purist. They have literally designed everything in this setting before the campaign starts, and refuses to change any of it except in response to PC action (no Quantum-Ogres). They've designed this ancient temple, and there it must stay.

Let's say the Ancient Temple is a huge tower, with the treasure mounted at the top. Anybody who wants the treasure therefore need to enter at ground level, and get through all the deadly traps and horrible monsters within until they reach the treasure at the top.

Or, they could cast Fly, bypass all the stuff inside the temple, and reach the Treasure.

In this case, "Fly" represents an I-Win button for the entire adventure. In a pure sandbox game, the GM shouldn't make this treasure a big deal for any party with access to any form of Flight (Since getting the treasure isn't a big deal). In a non-sandbox game (Doesn't mean the same thing as railroaded, but that's another discussion), the GM shouldn't send their party against this tower if they have access to Flight.

So much "should" and "should not". Yeesh.

My players have described my style as, "here's a world - go". Yes, to me, the tower is what it is, regardless of the existence of the PCs. If it was built in a pre-magic age, the box on top may well contain riches beyond belief, and the designers may well have never contemplated a raid from the sky.

Now, if the world doesn't seem like it's likely to have much fun and engaging gameplay, then there really isn't much point in running players through that particular sandbox, now is there?


From my reading of the evidence in the thread(s), part of the disconnect here, Quertus, is that your preference is for the majority of a Character's access to 'win' buttons to come from the Player's cleverness & tactical acumen. This, generally, makes the Player feel like she is directly responsible for the game's progress - an understandably good feeling. You build Characters (or decks) with in-game handicaps, but rely on your own tactics and math skills to minimize those handicaps, according to your own statements.

Most of those arguing with you appear to want the majority of a Character's access to 'win' buttons to come from the game's mechanics. This, generally, means that Players will become frustrated when the challenges before the Characters are resolved without allowing Players to actually use those mechanics. It also means folks might be frustrated when Character X's 'win' buttons are cheaper, or more broadly applicable, than Character Y's, because, again, those Players aren't able to use the game's mechanics. To you, by contrast, this is an opportunity to think laterally and bypass the 'win' buttons built into the system through your own intellect.

Please clarify where this is incorrect.


I wouldn't call "I don't want to be seen, so I cast Invisibility" or "I want to get through this door, so I cast Knock" examples of player cleverness or tactical acumen. That's just basic comprehension of what the spells do, and those are two explicit examples that Quertus uses in the first post.

Hmmm... I much more enjoy my success to come from cleverness and tactical acumen, maybe? Eh, I'm a war gamer at heart (who enjoys RPGs because they offer more than just the war game), so I suspect I enjoy both cleverness and mechanics.

But the win buttons currently under discussion are mechanical in nature, to keep the discussion simple, and rooted in, well, what I don't understand about why people give win buttons so much flak.

That having been said, in MtG, I'm largely a Johnny Combo Player. I enjoy tactical acumen at multiple stages - deck building, or even tactical card purchases, not just playing the deck, for example. Similarly, in 2e and older, it was a big decision whether the opportunity cost of memorizing Knock or Invisibility was worth it.

Oh, and I don't view it as building my decks with handicaps, so much as, "Oooh, Cosmic Larva looks cool! Let's see what I can do with that", with no thought whatsoever for "game balance", only caring about "fun".

[BRC]

Um, no, I want the effort I put into solving things to resolve in a meaningful way, according to the rules. When I move my knight onto the enemy queen, I expect the effort I put getting her into position to be rewarded by my knight taking the piece, not for the referee to declare that that clearly wasn't enough of a challenge, and change the rules on the fly to make the game "more challenging".

Well, now we're back at Definitions.
Taking the enemy knight with your queen isn't a "Win Button", it's one move in the entire game. You don't sit down at a chessboard, decide "I'm going to capture their queen", and then just make it happen.
A Win Button would be if Knights moved by automatically capturing the enemy queen from anywhere on the board, and simply by decided that you wanted to capture their queen, you could make it happen.


What if every single character's initial skill shtick gets eventually obsoleted, in part or in whole, by another character's win button? So everyone always has an equal number of roles to play, but what roles that are best suited for changes over time. How would that be received?

That would probably be fine, provided everybody knew what they were getting into from the start.


Now, if the world doesn't seem like it's likely to have much fun and engaging gameplay, then there really isn't much point in running players through that particular sandbox, now is there?

Exactly my point.

My thesis is that fun and engaging gameplay comes from overcoming challenges in fun and engaging ways, which Win Buttons don't cover.

Everything put into a world is done so by the GM. So, as much as it might make sense for Flight to bypass the entire tower, "We cast fly and get the treasure" is not a fun and engaging adventure, and the primary goal is to create fun and engaging gameplay.

This means either Removing Win Buttons (Nobody can cast fly), Avoiding challenges nullified by Win Buttons (just don't use the Tower), or work around the idea that the PC's might eventually gain access to a Win Button that will nullify this particular challenge, (The Great Treasure at the top of the tower is... a spellbook that teaches you to cast Fly).




So much "should" and "should not". Yeesh.


What's wrong with Should and Should Not? I'm offering my thoughts on adventure design with regards to the presence of Win Buttons. What other terms am I supposed to use?

[Quertus]

Odd, I though sandboxy DM's did not make anything and just reacted to the PCs....maybe we should start another thread. I've always wanted to get the answer to how a sandbox DM ''does'' it, with out normal DM Agency, other then just ''saying they don't do it and then doing it anyway.''

The tower or no tower is odd to say just as the ''type'' of game.

IMO, a sandbox is the ultimate expression of "my guy" syndrome - the entire bloody world is doing it's own thing.


For that matter, isn't knowing languages a win button?

Depends on the system, but yes, yes it is. Unless you're playing Real Life (third worst game ever, btw), where "knowing French" can still lead to you uttering "Je Finne" (sp?) much to your server's initial horror, then great amusement.


Yes, but there is a risk/chance of failure, which makes things a bit more engaging than simply spending resources.

Does it? When I purchase Park Place, it just works. When I cast most MtG spells, they just work. When I have a royal straight flush, it just works. Most of the games I've seen seem to favor "just work" as more engaging gameplay.


Edit II: I have a much better example of a "Win Button" than Knock (Since opening doors is usually a fairly minor challenge). Speak With Dead. In any sort of murder mystery adventure, Speak With Dead is a huge Win Button. The whole procedure of gathering evidence and trying to piece together what happened gets wrapped up with a single spell.

Unless you design the adventure with the ASSUMPTION that the players have Speak With Dead, in which case you're options are severely limited (The victim can't know who killed them), but you've invalidated the I Win button. There's no scenario where Speak With Dead both solves the mystery on it's own AND makes the mystery fun to solve.

Similarly, if solving the mystery of who killed the guy isn't supposed to be a challenge, then it's fine.

Well, I'd imagine that you'd still need to gather up the evidence against a muggle for a muggle court of law in Harry Potter, World of Darkness, Dresden Files, or most any other modern setting, magic is hidden game.

[Drakevarg]

When I cast most MtG spells, they just work.
Unless you're playing against a blue deck, in which case they probably have at least two counterspells in their hand at any given time. MtG is more like a ludicrously complicated, arms-racy version of rock-paper-scissors.


When I have a royal straight flush, it just works.

Yes, but you can't just choose to have a royal straight flush in your hand. The challenge comes in the form of the improbability of the occurrence.

[BRC]

most[/i] MtG spells, they just work. When I have a royal straight flush, it just works. Most of the games I've seen seem to favor "just work" as more engaging gameplay.
.
But none of those are Win Buttons. Those are just things that happen.
In Monopoly, the challenge isn't "Purchase Park Place", it's "Deplete your opponent's resources". Similarly, you don't purchase park place by just deciding to purchase park place, you must first land on it, before anybody else has bought it, and with enough money in hand to do so (Admittedly, not much of a problem).

If you're playing Poker, you don't just decide to have a Royal Flush, you have to draw it (or have it dealt to you).


It's not a "Win Button" unless 1) All you have to do to use it is decide to use it (Like pushing a Button), and 2) It makes you win.

You're not describing Win Buttons there. You're just describing basic game mechanics functioning.

"Pass Go Collect 200 dollars" isn't a win button any more than "When it's your turn, roll the dice and move" is a Win Button.

Edit: Let's make this super simple.

We are playing Rock-Paper-Scissors. Here are the rules.

1) Paper beats Rock.
2) Rock beats Scissors.
3) Scissors beat Paper
4) Ties mean we go again.
5) I can throw a Thumbs Up, which beats everything (Just me though. You have to stick to Rock Paper Scissors).

Thumbs Up is a Win Button. Rock is not, even though I can choose rock whenever I want to with basically no chance of my hand making any other shape. Rock doesn't win me the game.

[Talakeal]

Yea, yea, 3E tries to make a big deal about ''resolving'' challenges. This for a game with a massive chapter titled ''Combat'', but no chapter titled ''Peace'' or ''Non-Violent Hug Flower Powers''.

But...if a character bypasses a challenge, they don't get XP for it. Or is that a house rule from your game? Also if a character does 'bypass' something easily, then it's not a challenge. And I guess the ''main treasure pile is generally worth around as much as everything else in the dungeon'' is another house rule of yours?



Well, sure after 10+ years of some people complaining the Creators said ''fine, ok, as they can't fix things their selves, we will do the work for them...sigh."



It is accurate enough, and it exactly describes my type of game.

It's just as odd to me that so many games are like ''Jim the Wizard says 'I Win' " and the DM crawls under the table and is like ''ok-day''.

Out of curiosity, how is "ok-day" pronounced? You are the only one whom I can ever recall having used it.

[Lord Raziere]

Um, no, I want the effort I put into solving things to resolve in a meaningful way, according to the rules. When I move my knight onto the enemy queen, I expect the effort I put getting her into position to be rewarded by my knight taking the piece, not for the referee to declare that that clearly wasn't enough of a challenge, and change the rules on the fly to make the game "more challenging".



Then why do you keep using methods where you do that in 1-2 moves and thus make the game un-meaningful? whats the point of taking the piece if its easy? its not my worth my time as a GM if your going to make it so short and meaningless.

[Tinkerer]

You know what? ... Everyone's been focusing on spells but there is one "I Win" button which is extremely powerful, nearly impossible to guard against, and almost the entire community agrees is extremely stupid and an example of bad game design which isn't a spell. How about the "I Win" button which is the Diplomancer? Impossible to guard against (except for some creatures with a built in immunity or by attacking the user), can't be used against you so no danger of the GM going "I counter your Win button by using the same Win button against you", capable of bending entire kingdoms to your will, and it completely trivializes a key part of the game. It's an "I Win" button for conversations. Now I can't recall the last time I heard of a GM actually using it as printed or mentioning it getting turned down in their table rules. This is the "I Win" button taken up to 11. Now take the aspects of that which help make the game less enjoyable, dial them back, and you can probably try and see what people dislike about other win buttons.

[Pex]

there is also the story factor. i would much rather live / tell the story about how our small band of heroes fought valiently against the orcish army. felling them one by one, and acchiving victory by the skin of their teeth, over the party ENCOUNTERING the orcish army, and then casting a maximized doom appocolypse ball spell once and insta-gibbing the lot of them.

By the time you can cast Meteor Storm against the orc army the plot of the adventure shouldn't be to destroy the orc army. The plot would be to kill the general leading the army or even the BBEG leader in the Capital of the enemy territory and destroying the orc army with Meteor Storm was the method you used/needed just to clear a path to the true target. They're the mooks akin to the mooks you got rid of with Burning Hands umpteenth levels ago.

[Draconi Redfir]

By the time you can cast Meteor Storm against the orc army the plot of the adventure shouldn't be to destroy the orc army. The plot would be to kill the general leading the army or even the BBEG leader in the Capital of the enemy territory and destroying the orc army with Meteor Storm was the method you used/needed just to clear a path to the true target. They're the mooks akin to the mooks you got rid of with Burning Hands umpteenth levels ago.

that's nice, but that's not the point.

the point is i would rather live / tell the story of a group of heroes taking on an entire orcish army and sucseeding by the skin of their teeth, then i would telling the story of how the group of heroes encountered an orcish army and cast super-mega-death-ball and killed them all in half a seccond.

you are attempting to disect an example. this is not neccicary.

[Forum Explorer]

Thinking about it, I've come up with a good example of a win button that I absolutely hated seeing.

It was in Warhammer 40K 7th ed, and it was the psychic deathstar. It consisted of 4-6 Psychers abusing really powerful spells to make one unit that was so loaded up with special characters and weapons effectively invincible. Their 'army' would be one super unit, but unless you were playing a very specific counter (which only certain armies could actually use), you would lose.

Of course the process of losing would take 2 hours. 2 hours of them rolling dice, rerolling dice, rolling an extra save, and carefully moving their guys around to ensure you can't do anything. Meanwhile your own army got to be slowly whittled down a unit at a time while you desperatly had to gather whatever secondary points to try and stay competitive in the tournament.

Oh, and you can't just decline to play, because that auto gives them max points and you minimum.

It was downright crappy to play against. It was boring, frustrating, and blatantly unfair. That's what a win button feels like to other people. You get to sit there and either lose or just effectively do nothing. But you certainly aren't playing the game and having fun.

[icefractal]

And finally, the difficulty of scaling without hard counters. As your rogue gets stealthier, you can use more observant guards. When a wizard casts invisibility, you either just accept that the guards can't see them, or have to include some sort of hard-counter (which raises it's own problem)This brings up an interesting point, and the reason some people really like "hard" abilities, which win buttons are a subset of - because it prevents disguised treadmills.

Take guards - if you say that an average night watchman in a small town has, say, Perception +3, and the High Inquisitors of the Eternal Empire have Perception +30 - ok, that's well and good. But there is sometimes a tendency for GMs, at the point the Rogue has Stealth +20, to bump up NPCs Perception in general, so now that same local watchman has Perception +15. Hmm. Kind of negates the point of gaining levels, doesn't it?

With hard abilities and hard counters, you can't do that without it being obvious. The High Inquisitors still can spot the Rogue, they have mystic third eye tattoos that pierce illusions after all. But giving a random watchman a tattoo like that would be obviously strange, and indeed most GMs won't do it.

Now I hear it already - why are you in a conflict with the GM? If you don't trust the GM you should leave the game, right? But IME, this concept of "problems come only from evil GMs" is a red herring. Much more often, it's a perfectly decent GM who's just having an off-day, or an uncreative moment, and that little nudge by the structure of the rules can put things back onto a better path.

[Pex]

that's nice, but that's not the point.

the point is i would rather live / tell the story of a group of heroes taking on an entire orcish army and sucseeding by the skin of their teeth, then i would telling the story of how the group of heroes encountered an orcish army and cast super-mega-death-ball and killed them all in half a seccond.

you are attempting to disect an example. this is not neccicary.

That's fine.

Not saying you did, but with others who also have your preference don't blame a game system where eventually the PCs outgrow that scenario. The game is not wrong to do so. It's just not your preference.

[Drakevarg]

The game is not wrong to do so. It's just not your preference.

Y'know, at this point you could basically just leave a cardboard cutout of yourself with this taped to the front in your seat and we could assume it is accurately representing your counterpoints.

[Faily]

the point is i would rather live / tell the story of a group of heroes taking on an entire orcish army and sucseeding by the skin of their teeth

Which is still totally possible to do at high-levels. With casters. And yes, I say that because our weekly Pathfinder-group does it. Miracle has seen frequent use from our party-cleric.
The War of the Burning Sky-campaign's final chapter has a big battle with armies and everything with the PCs being big deciding factors in it. Red Hand of Doom (one of the most popular published campaigns on this forum, judging by the amount of campaign-journals I've seen for it) also has a big climactic battle against the evil army... at a lower level than War of the Burning Sky, mind you, but still well-within the range of these so-called "Win-button" spells.


---


But frankly, I think this debate suffers from a major disconnect since there seems to be the opinion that a D&D-character has an "I Win"-button if they have a skill modifier of 15 or higher... :smallsigh: By that logic, my Witch in Iron Gods is a goddamn game-breaker by having several Knowledge-skills and Spellcraft at 20+.


Trouble is, some people hate it that the party is outleveling the challenge. They'll never accept being able to fly over a chasm to make chasm as an obstacle obsolete. They'll never accept the rogue can open any door. They're determined chasms are always obstacles and must have a chance to fail unlocking a door. They then decide to ban that which makes their must have obstacles obsolete and/or complain they're broken/ruining the game/should not exist/unbalances the game. They're not wrong for wanting chasms as obstacles and doors failing to unlock, but the reputation of a game system that denies them shouldn't be brought down because of it. The game system is not wrong either. It's just incompatible to what that person wants.

Yes, thank you.

[Drakevarg]

But frankly, I think this debate suffers from a major disconnect since there seems to be the opinion that a D&D-character has an "I Win"-button if they have a skill modifier of 15 or higher... :smallsigh: By that logic, my Witch in Iron Gods is a goddamn game-breaker by having several Knowledge-skills and Spellcraft at 20+.

Where has anyone expressed an opinion that a high skill modifier is a Win Button, except in the context of Diplomancy? The complaints have mostly been centered around abilities that bypass the skill check entirely.

[Draconi Redfir]

That's fine.

Not saying you did, but with others who also have your preference don't blame a game system where eventually the PCs outgrow that scenario. The game is not wrong to do so. It's just not your preference.

I'm not blaming a game system though. nor have i ever said the PC"S outgrew the scenario, you are the one who said that. i'm saying that if given the choice, i would much preffer living and/or telling the story of the first, rather then the seccond. And that there is a "for the story" aspect of why people don't like "i win" buttons, because they make for bad / boring stories.


Which is still totally possible to do at high-levels. With casters. And yes, I say that because our weekly Pathfinder-group does it. Miracle has seen frequent use from our party-cleric.

i never said it couldn't happen at high levels / with casters????:smallconfused:

[Amphetryon]

This brings up an interesting point, and the reason some people really like "hard" abilities, which win buttons are a subset of - because it prevents disguised treadmills.

Take guards - if you say that an average night watchman in a small town has, say, Perception +3, and the High Inquisitors of the Eternal Empire have Perception +30 - ok, that's well and good. But there is sometimes a tendency for GMs, at the point the Rogue has Stealth +20, to bump up NPCs Perception in general, so now that same local watchman has Perception +15. Hmm. Kind of negates the point of gaining levels, doesn't it?

With hard abilities and hard counters, you can't do that without it being obvious. The High Inquisitors still can spot the Rogue, they have mystic third eye tattoos that pierce illusions after all. But giving a random watchman a tattoo like that would be obviously strange, and indeed most GMs won't do it.

Now I hear it already - why are you in a conflict with the GM? If you don't trust the GM you should leave the game, right? But IME, this concept of "problems come only from evil GMs" is a red herring. Much more often, it's a perfectly decent GM who's just having an off-day, or an uncreative moment, and that little nudge by the structure of the rules can put things back onto a better path.

I have known some GMs who treadmill in this way. I have known others who include the singular 'thorp guard with +15 to Perception checks' as a breadcrumb for the PCs to investigate, should they have a mind to (whether such breadcrumbs are railroad tracks is a whole other debate). The difficulty often comes from an inability to distinguish the former from the latter.

[Telok]

Well there was also the fact that high level ad&d thieves had a couple of 99% skills. Of course there are ways in d&d 3.5 to have +25 to a skill at level 5, sans spellcasting. I don't recall anyone ever complaining about either of those in this thread.
Then with d&d 4 & 5 the skill setup is so locked onto a flat advancement by level that any numeric bonus sufficent to distinguish between 'untrained' and 'expert' renders anyone else's skill without that level of investment irrelevant.

Edit: about the wh40k thing, was that a 'win button', an unanticipated combo effect, or just a tactic with no easy counter? I understand the frustration, that sort of thing in a tournament setting is a little unsporting.

[Pex]

Y'know, at this point you could basically just leave a cardboard cutout of yourself with this taped to the front in your seat and we could assume it is accurately representing your counterpoints.

I win!
:smallbiggrin:

[RedWarlock]

When I purchase Park Place, it just works.

The purchase of Park Place isn't the active challenge, it's the reward. Rolling accurately to land on PP is the challenge, just as rolling a stealth or whatever check is. Likewise, your other card-based examples are mis-referencing the resolution, not the challenge itself. You have to *randomly* draw the right cards to get those hands.

"Win Button" isn't a pre-existing definiton, from my experience. Breaking it down, we have two or three concepts I'm familiar with.


Knock, Speak Language, and other effects are "no roll, just yes."
True Strike, Invisibility, and Glibness are roll-boosters. They can make your check amazingly high (+20, etc), but it's possible to out-scale them, even if exceedingly rare.
Thirdly, we have the hard counters to other effects. Defensive, negating, but not active-use. Death Ward, Mind Blank, Magic Circle, etc. I count these separately.


I could see all three being defined as win-buttons under different circumstances in prior posts of this thread. (Personally, I hate the 3rd category, and prefer to retcon the 1st into the 2nd.)

[Darth Ultron]

Take guards - if you say that an average night watchman in a small town has, say, Perception +3, and the High Inquisitors of the Eternal Empire have Perception +30 - ok, that's well and good. But there is sometimes a tendency for GMs, at the point the Rogue has Stealth +20, to bump up NPCs Perception in general, so now that same local watchman has Perception +15. Hmm. Kind of negates the point of gaining levels, doesn't it?

No, the point should be more that the Rogue has Stealth +20 should not really have any reason to try and sneak past anyone with pathetically low Perceptions. They could, very pointlessly do so, but it's just a waste of time.

In the Status Que type game you would have:

1.The Guards of Mudport(GP value 20,000) have Perception +3
2.The Guards Goldberg(GP value 500,000) have Perception +15
3.The High Inquisitors of the Eternal Empire(GP value one billion) have Perception +30

So the Rogue has Stealth +20 can sneak by the Mudport guards no problem, but even if he did he would need to rob the everyone in the whole city to get the 20,000 gold there. So it's really no worth doing. And as Mudport is full of just about all 1st level commoners, there is no other reason to go there.

The problem you describe come in for a Scaled Game. That is where ''the whole world'' is roughly 2-5 ''levels'' more powerful then the Player Characters. So the Guards of Travelport get 1-2 levels each time the Player Characters get a level.

Now the trick is a Status Que game must ''shake off the mortal coil'' and leave things behind. Once the Player Characters get past the ''rough level'' of a place, the game must leave that place behind for any type of mechanical challenge. So once the PC's are 3rd level or so, they simply have no reason to ever adventure in Mudport. They can still go their and role play, but not roll any dice.

And what makes the scaled game nice and appealing to a lot of DM's is that they can keep using the same place. This is even more so true if the DM made the ''special place'' and ''likes it''. So then the whole city(and world around) Goldport ''goes up a level or two'' as needed to all ways make it a ''challenge'' to the Pcs.





Knock, Speak Language, and other effects are "no roll, just yes."
True Strike, Invisibility, and Glibness are roll-boosters. They can make your check amazingly high (+20, etc), but it's possible to out-scale them, even if exceedingly rare.
Thirdly, we have the hard counters to other effects. Defensive, negating, but not active-use. Death Ward, Mind Blank, Magic Circle, etc. I count these separately.


I could see all three being defined as win-buttons under different circumstances in prior posts of this thread. (Personally, I hate the 3rd category, and prefer to retcon the 1st into the 2nd.)

I see your win buttons as....very, very, very low bar.

*Effects like knock can open mundane doors and arcane locked doors...and that is it. The spell is pretty clear it is not a ''super awesome wish open anything'' type spell. Put some portcullis in a hallway and knock can't do a thing.

*Temporary high checks are temporary.

*Hard Counters, well they are counters not ''win buttons''.

I see a win button as a character not just with a high AC, but with something like ''my character can't take damage''. A lot like god mode in a video game.

[jayem]

I see your win buttons as....very, very, very low bar.

*Effects like knock can open mundane doors and arcane locked doors...and that is it. The spell is pretty clear it is not a ''super awesome wish open anything'' type spell. Put some portcullis in a hallway and knock can't do a thing.

*Temporary high checks are temporary.

*Hard Counters, well they are counters not ''win buttons''.

I see a win button as a character not just with a high AC, but with something like ''my character can't take damage''. A lot like god mode in a video game.

That's probably the other thing that makes a win-button. At low skills you can with some ingenuity counter almost anything for anything. There's plenty of flexibility [and something not intentional, the portcullus, can take away the advantage].

You may have jump, but I can use haste to run round the obstacle you are jumping over or I can use stealth to get close to you before you jump, or I can use ranged weapons, find a choke point and use my superior strength, arrange an ambush with my superior numbers... It's a question of using respective advantages, and in turn they can be both anticipated and resolved afterwards in multitude ways.

Once you have flight, the options start to get limited. I can shoot them down, or be another flyer, or be somewhere very specific. It starts to become a bit rock/paper/scissors. They either have a defence prepared beforehand or they don't. But even muggles can do something, and even if you can't you can prepare for what's next, the flight is only stage one.

Once you get teleport, the defence is basically a permanent anti-teleport spell. You could perhaps make it slightly harder with misleading design. you can just about pre-emptively arrange an ambush, but at the expense of leaving every where else exposed. Basically you can't respond unless you have the Nope spell.

[Pex]

No, the point should be more that the Rogue has Stealth +20 should not really have any reason to try and sneak past anyone with pathetically low Perceptions. They could, very pointlessly do so, but it's just a waste of time.

In the Status Que type game you would have:

1.The Guards of Mudport(GP value 20,000) have Perception +3
2.The Guards Goldberg(GP value 500,000) have Perception +15
3.The High Inquisitors of the Eternal Empire(GP value one billion) have Perception +30

So the Rogue has Stealth +20 can sneak by the Mudport guards no problem, but even if he did he would need to rob the everyone in the whole city to get the 20,000 gold there. So it's really no worth doing. And as Mudport is full of just about all 1st level commoners, there is no other reason to go there.

The problem you describe come in for a Scaled Game. That is where ''the whole world'' is roughly 2-5 ''levels'' more powerful then the Player Characters. So the Guards of Travelport get 1-2 levels each time the Player Characters get a level.

Now the trick is a Status Que game must ''shake off the mortal coil'' and leave things behind. Once the Player Characters get past the ''rough level'' of a place, the game must leave that place behind for any type of mechanical challenge. So once the PC's are 3rd level or so, they simply have no reason to ever adventure in Mudport. They can still go their and role play, but not roll any dice.

And what makes the scaled game nice and appealing to a lot of DM's is that they can keep using the same place. This is even more so true if the DM made the ''special place'' and ''likes it''. So then the whole city(and world around) Goldport ''goes up a level or two'' as needed to all ways make it a ''challenge'' to the Pcs.



This is an interesting point that gives me pause. A dilemma like this makes a good case for Bounded Accuracy in 5E. Mudport would remain relevant for a longer period of time. The party would still eventually outgrow it, but it takes longer. Goldberg would always remain relevant. DMs who don't like PCs outgrowing the world could like this. Mudport is some small village or town met at 1st level. Plot shenanigans later the PCs deal with the real problem behind it all say level 8. By that point Mudport is home, but the campaign doesn't center there anymore which is ok. That's the campaign developing. Without Bounded Accuracy the players outgrow Mudport by level 4, and that is too fast for some DMs. Insert my cardboard cut-out, but I see the appeal of wanting to stay in Mudport a bit longer, and it would be ridiculous for Mudport to polymorph into Silverport to stay relevant.

I don't see this as an issue of win buttons but rather an issue of the rate of increase of the math numbers and power abilities. For that a DM's taste is better off choosing the system to match. Those who don't want the numbers getting bigger might like GURPS. Those who don't mind the increase but want it slow and steady might like 5E. Those for whom it's of no issue at all, it's a feature or irrelevant, might like 3E/Pathfinder.

[Quertus]

What's wrong with Should and Should Not? I'm offering my thoughts on adventure design with regards to the presence of Win Buttons. What other terms am I supposed to use?

It's more that your ideas often seem to apply to a specific style of game. By saying that you should do X, without qualifying the statement, it makes it difficult to determine if you're not cognizant of that fact, or if you're contending that those other styles are badwrongfun, or if you honestly believe that the things you say that one should or should not do would actually work in all possible gaming styles.


Unless you're playing against a blue deck, in which case they probably have at least two counterspells in their hand at any given time. MtG is more like a ludicrously complicated, arms-racy version of rock-paper-scissors.

And there's a reason why this style of decks like blue counters is known as "negative play experience". And it's not because the added risk of whether your spell will go off or not is fun.


Diplomancer

So, back in 2e, all we had was Charisma. Most players considered it a dump stat. But, as GM, I always factored it in heavily in any social interactions with NPCs.

Well, this one time, all of the players (who had no reason to know how I handled Charisma) came to the table with charismatic characters. The lowest charisma in the party was a 15!

Needless to say, they played team diplomacy. They talked to and negotiated with most anything they could. That was the game, and they loved it.

How does this differ from the Diplomancer?

Hmmm... Well, for one, there was still player involvement beyond "I roll for success". The players still had to understand the situation, strategize about how to approach which NPC, and lay out ideas which appealed to said NPC. They were just playing in "easy mode", where, if they messed up, the consequences of failure were lower, and the possible rewards of success / the possible avenues of success were greater. Rather than "god mode", where they just wrote their success.

Another reason which flows naturally from that is that their successes were both earned and "realistic". They could point to exactly what they did to accomplish their goals, instead of responding with the lame, "we threw Charisma / diplomacy at it, and rolled well".

Another huge and obvious difference is that this was the whole party vs one diplomancer. Everyone was involved, because everyone was involved. Niche protection, where's your god now?

So far, my takeaway is that, when the majority of the game is about something that one character's one infinite use win button applies to, that is bad. But I'm not sure that any one ingredient makes it bad. I'm not sure that "win button" is inherently worse than "infinite use", "one character", or "broadly applicable". Personally, I'd argue that, individually, they're likely all capable of being good things.


It was downright crappy to play against. It was boring, frustrating, and blatantly unfair. That's what a win button feels like to other people. You get to sit there and either lose or just effectively do nothing. But you certainly aren't playing the game and having fun.

In RPGs, you usually aren't paying against the win button - they're usually on your team. Playing against win buttons... I haven't thought this though, but I suspect that they're either strange, arbitrary, and railroady, or they're more of a puzzle / kinda the point of the game.

For playing with run buttons, here's my idea. Suppose you / your character are/is a ridiculously skilled receiver. Every time the ball gets near your hands, you catch it. But, in the final play of the championship game, you "roll poorly", and are unable to shake the guy who is on you. Your quarterback's defenses are crumbling, and he needs to get rid of the ball. Bob the Swift, not generally as good a receiver as you, plays his win button of unparalleled speed, and gets open, catching the winning ball for your team.

Are you upset at Bob for winning the game for your team?

[Tinkerer]

So, back in 2e, all we had was Charisma. Most players considered it a dump stat. But, as GM, I always factored it in heavily in any social interactions with NPCs.

Well, this one time, all of the players (who had no reason to know how I handled Charisma) came to the table with charismatic characters. The lowest charisma in the party was a 15!

Needless to say, they played team diplomacy. They talked to and negotiated with most anything they could. That was the game, and they loved it.

How does this differ from the Diplomancer?

Hmmm... Well, for one, there was still player involvement beyond "I roll for success". The players still had to understand the situation, strategize about how to approach which NPC, and lay out ideas which appealed to said NPC. They were just playing in "easy mode", where, if they messed up, the consequences of failure were lower, and the possible rewards of success / the possible avenues of success were greater. Rather than "god mode", where they just wrote their success.

Another reason which flows naturally from that is that their successes were both earned and "realistic". They could point to exactly what they did to accomplish their goals, instead of responding with the lame, "we threw Charisma / diplomacy at it, and rolled well".

Another huge and obvious difference is that this was the whole party vs one diplomancer. Everyone was involved, because everyone was involved. Niche protection, where's your god now?

So far, my takeaway is that, when the majority of the game is about something that one character's one infinite use win button applies to, that is bad. But I'm not sure that any one ingredient makes it bad. I'm not sure that "win button" is inherently worse than "infinite use", "one character", or "broadly applicable". Personally, I'd argue that, individually, they're likely all capable of being good things.


... Yes? Win buttons are capable of being good things or bad things. Quite often they can be negative elements of design as you just demonstrated. Much like anything else in design they require finesse.

If you take something with nuance and replace it with a flat I win button you have taken an analog portion of the game with many subtle layers and turned it into a digital on/off portion. This can be good and fine if it's an area which needs speeding up in the game but if you do it to a portion where players want nuance it will be viewed as a negative change.

I think I'm going to take a step back from this thread. I really would need to see the posts which motivated you to start this thread in order to properly respond. I don't think almost anyone here (judging from the back and forth between yourself and them) truly understands which usage of win button you are objecting to being used.

Although I will mention that you used niche protection incorrectly there. There was no niche to protect in that situation therefore niche protection does not apply.

[Darth Ultron]

That's probably the other thing that makes a win-button. At low skills you can with some ingenuity counter almost anything for anything. There's plenty of flexibility [and something not intentional, the portcullus, can take away the advantage].

D&D, at least 0E through 3.5E and Pathfinder, is designed with the idea of rising difficultly . As the PC's get more skills and abilities, things in the game do get harder.



Once you get teleport, the defence is basically a permanent anti-teleport spell. You could perhaps make it slightly harder with misleading design. you can just about pre-emptively arrange an ambush, but at the expense of leaving every where else exposed. Basically you can't respond unless you have the Nope spell.

If your just talking about the Core rules this is true, but once you add other books things can get more interesting.



Without Bounded Accuracy the players outgrow Mudport by level 4, and that is too fast for some DMs. Insert my cardboard cut-out, but I see the appeal of wanting to stay in Mudport a bit longer, and it would be ridiculous for Mudport to polymorph into Silverport to stay relevant.

That is a good point about 'win buttons': It all depends on the speed of the level advancement of the game. Most DM's, and some players like slow advancement, so for example locked doors and high walls are problems for a character for a long time. And by long time we are talking at least a year in real time, assuming a game every week.

All most all players want fast advancement. They want to go from ''clueless nobody'' to ''demigod'' fast. They want to leave mundane things behind as quickly as possible. And by fast, they are talking no more then three months or so real time, assuming a game every week.

And the problem comes in as the DM caves to the players request for fast advancement and has the PC level every month or two. So by even six months of game play the Pc's are ''Super Heroes'' and the players are happy as clams, but the DM still wants the game to be full of mundane problems. But the Pc's are way beyond such Mundane Mush, and the DM is lagging way behind.

[Pex]

For playing with run buttons, here's my idea. Suppose you / your character are/is a ridiculously skilled receiver. Every time the ball gets near your hands, you catch it. But, in the final play of the championship game, you "roll poorly", and are unable to shake the guy who is on you. Your quarterback's defenses are crumbling, and he needs to get rid of the ball. Bob the Swift, not generally as good a receiver as you, plays his win button of unparalleled speed, and gets open, catching the winning ball for your team.

Are you upset at Bob for winning the game for your team?

I was at sleepaway camp. I suck at football. I was useless to the team. It was 4th down. I told the quarterback I'm going to run far out with the idea of taking the person who's covering me with me so that it's one less opponent to worry about. We play. I run far out. The one who is covering me doesn't follow. I'm way out there, alone. The quarterback throws the ball to me. I think he's nuts for doing it, but I try to catch it anyway. I look for where the ball would land and get there. Down it comes. I catch it! I actually caught a football for the first time, ever! The impact knocked me to the ground. Everyone was running so I couldn't get up in time. I got tagged. I didn't get the touchdown, but my team was happy since my catch made the ball be across the field for the other team. I was beaming.

Thanks for the memory.

[Drakevarg]

For playing with run buttons, here's my idea. Suppose you / your character are/is a ridiculously skilled receiver. Every time the ball gets near your hands, you catch it. But, in the final play of the championship game, you "roll poorly", and are unable to shake the guy who is on you. Your quarterback's defenses are crumbling, and he needs to get rid of the ball. Bob the Swift, not generally as good a receiver as you, plays his win button of unparalleled speed, and gets open, catching the winning ball for your team.

Are you upset at Bob for winning the game for your team?

This scenario wouldn't be a win button, it'd be having an ace up your sleeve. A win button would be when this scenario never came up in the first place because Bob the Swift used his win button of unparalleled speed right out the bat and won the match singlehandedly.

You'll notice nobody's used fireball as an example of a win button yet. Most people like having the option to 'go nova' when they're pushed to the edge, having that one last trick that can completely turn a situation around. That's not the problem. It only becomes a problem when that tense moment and cathartic satisfaction of regaining the upper hand is just skipped because you could just negate the challenge whenever you felt like it.

[digiman619]

I was at sleepaway camp. I suck at football. I was useless to the team. It was 4th down. I told the quarterback I'm going to run far out with the idea of taking the person who's covering me with me so that it's one less opponent to worry about. We play. I run far out. The one who is covering me doesn't follow. I'm way out there, alone. The quarterback throws the ball to me. I think he's nuts for doing it, but I try to catch it anyway. I look for where the ball would land and get there. Down it comes. I catch it! I actually caught a football for the first time, ever! The impact knocked me to the ground. Everyone was running so I couldn't get up in time. I got tagged. I didn't get the touchdown, but my team was happy since my catch made the ball be across the field for the other team. I was beaming.

Thanks for the memory.
Not be be rude, but shouldn't that have earned your team a first down?

[Pex]

Not be be rude, but shouldn't that have earned your team a first down?

I told you I suck at football. :smallwink:

I think it meant each side only had 4 chances to get a touchdown for the game we were playing. I'm remembering it was our last chance before the other team got the ball. It happened in the previous century, so the exact details in the retelling won't be accurate. I just remember catching that ball.

[Quertus]

True Strike, Invisibility, and Glibness are roll-boosters. They can make your check amazingly high (+20, etc), but it's possible to out-scale them, even if exceedingly rare.


That's 3e specific. In every system, invisibility is a hard counter to being seen. What mechanical effect that has on, say, stealth, will vary from system to system.


Once you have flight, the options start to get limited. I can shoot them down, or be another flyer, or be somewhere very specific. It starts to become a bit rock/paper/scissors.

Or be invisible. Or stealthy. Or faster than them. Or be a diplomancer. Or carry full cover with you. Or control the weather. Or be immune to their attacks. Or engage them in something other than combat in the first place.


Once you get teleport, the defence is basically a permanent anti-teleport spell. You could perhaps make it slightly harder with misleading design. you can just about pre-emptively arrange an ambush, but at the expense of leaving every where else exposed. Basically you can't respond unless you have the Nope spell.

Let's take scrye and die off the table. Let's say teleport makes a very obvious, glowing, noisy, etc effect at the target area for, say, 5 actions / 5 rounds / whatever while you are teleporting before you appear. So it is only good for getting you ambushed, not for ambushing others. Do you still have an issue with teleport as a win button for travel?


This is an interesting point that gives me pause. A dilemma like this makes a good case for Bounded Accuracy in 5E. Mudport would remain relevant for a longer period of time. The party would still eventually outgrow it, but it takes longer. Goldberg would always remain relevant. DMs who don't like PCs outgrowing the world could like this. Mudport is some small village or town met at 1st level. Plot shenanigans later the PCs deal with the real problem behind it all say level 8. By that point Mudport is home, but the campaign doesn't center there anymore which is ok. That's the campaign developing. Without Bounded Accuracy the players outgrow Mudport by level 4, and that is too fast for some DMs. Insert my cardboard cut-out, but I see the appeal of wanting to stay in Mudport a bit longer, and it would be ridiculous for Mudport to polymorph into Silverport to stay relevant.

I don't see this as an issue of win buttons but rather an issue of the rate of increase of the math numbers and power abilities. For that a DM's taste is better off choosing the system to match. Those who don't want the numbers getting bigger might like GURPS. Those who don't mind the increase but want it slow and steady might like 5E. Those for whom it's of no issue at all, it's a feature or irrelevant, might like 3E/Pathfinder.

... What? We now have multiple people claiming that, unless a town has superior "numbers", it cannot have a role in the narrative.

In your classic RPG, the town is hiring the heroes for since quest. This implies that the heroes have capabilities that the town lacks. In short, that the heroes have bigger "numbers" than the town.

So, for the classic RPG, the town is only relevant to the heroes' story if it has smaller numbers than the heroes.

If you reverse that... Then the heroes best have lots of money, and be hiring the town to complete some quest? I'm really not sure how that's supposed to work.


... Yes? Win buttons are capable of being good things or bad things. Quite often they can be negative elements of design as you just demonstrated. Much like anything else in design they require finesse.

If you take something with nuance and replace it with a flat I win button you have taken an analog portion of the game with many subtle layers and turned it into a digital on/off portion. This can be good and fine if it's an area which needs speeding up in the game but if you do it to a portion where players want nuance it will be viewed as a negative change.

I think I'm going to take a step back from this thread. I really would need to see the posts which motivated you to start this thread in order to properly respond. I don't think almost anyone here (judging from the back and forth between yourself and them) truly understands which usage of win button you are objecting to being used.

Although I will mention that you used niche protection incorrectly there. There was no niche to protect in that situation therefore niche protection does not apply.

Well, the purpose of the thread was for me to understand, hmmm, why people hated win buttons, and why (unlike with my experience IRL) the internet wasn't calling them out for actually hating something else, like game imbalance.

One thing I learned beyond what I set out to learn is that "win button" does not have one singular clear definition. Which, I agree, has muddied the waters considerably in this thread.

But the issue of level of granularity, of nuance vs binary state is certainly one of the most understandable reasons to dislike win buttons to come out of this thread, IMO.

As to niche protection... Isn't "talking to things" a niche? One which the Diplomacer fills very well - to the detriment of fun in most games - while the party which enjoyed diplomacy stepped all over the toes of niche protection of the party face.

[jayem]

Or be invisible. Or stealthy. Or faster than them. Or carry full cover with you. Or be immune to their attacks.

They're all passive defences, which is fine for allowing you to achieve your objective uninterrupted (or if flight is of limited duration, so overlandflight is much more powerful than flight). But also does nothing to stop them achieving theirs. If you like against those characters it's a mutual "draw button". You could quite realistically get to a position where they don't play their card and you do play yours, or provoke a situation where a draw is a victory for you (variants of don't engage).


Or be a diplomancer. Or control the weather.. Or engage them in something other than combat in the first place.




Let's take scrye and die off the table. Let's say teleport makes a very obvious, glowing, noisy, etc effect at the target area for, say, 5 actions / 5 rounds / whatever while you are teleporting before you appear. So it is only good for getting you ambushed, not for ambushing others. Do you still have an issue with teleport as a win button for travel?

As a win button for travel, yesish, it wouldn't make any difference. It would still mean there can be absolutely no travel obstacles (as supposed to almost none). No interceptions, limited traps. So you would lose a lot of options of stuff happening to you while gaining options for places you can go to (easily), which depends on what you want. It may not be a problem.

As a win button for attacks. That would make a big difference. It would still be massively powerful, but at least it could be countered with reasonable sustainable prep.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was still a 'win formula', (say half the party could teleport an explosive rune to fake destinations, while the other half teleport that half party to the real choke point), but assume they are all dealt with too.

[Darth Ultron]

... What? We now have multiple people claiming that, unless a town has superior "numbers", it cannot have a role in the narrative.

A town can always have a place in the pure Role Play, non mechanical, narrative.

But if your playing a Status Que type game (and remember that is everything is set at the level it should be with no regard to 'balance' or what level the PCs are), then when the PC's are 12th level the Demon Lord won't tell Muddy McMudd Face the Mud Merchant of Mudport, a first level commoner, his secret base location(they would need to go to Evilport and get it from D'ark, a 12th level shadow demon warlock.)

And if your playing the Scaled Game, then Muddy McMudd Face the Mud Merchant of Mudport, will be a 14 th level Expert anyway as the whole world levels up in advance of the Pcs.

[Forum Explorer]

Edit: about the wh40k thing, was that a 'win button', an unanticipated combo effect, or just a tactic with no easy counter? I understand the frustration, that sort of thing in a tournament setting is a little unsporting.

an unanticipated combo effect (well unanticipated by the developers anyways) basically created a win button.




In RPGs, you usually aren't paying against the win button - they're usually on your team. Playing against win buttons... I haven't thought this though, but I suspect that they're either strange, arbitrary, and railroady, or they're more of a puzzle / kinda the point of the game.

For playing with run buttons, here's my idea. Suppose you / your character are/is a ridiculously skilled receiver. Every time the ball gets near your hands, you catch it. But, in the final play of the championship game, you "roll poorly", and are unable to shake the guy who is on you. Your quarterback's defenses are crumbling, and he needs to get rid of the ball. Bob the Swift, not generally as good a receiver as you, plays his win button of unparalleled speed, and gets open, catching the winning ball for your team.

Are you upset at Bob for winning the game for your team?

The GM is playing against the win button then. And they can be hard to deal with.

Like other's said, it's a win button if Bob can do that every game, and does to win. You aren't needed at all. Why bother passing it to you when they can give the ball to Bob and he uses his win button to score every time?

[jayem]

A town can always have a place in the pure Role Play, non mechanical, narrative.

But if your playing a Status Quo type game (and remember that is everything is set at the level it should be with no regard to 'balance' or what level the PCs are), then when the PC's are 12th level the Demon Lord won't tell Muddy McMudd Face the Mud Merchant of Mudport, a first level commoner, his secret base location(they would need to go to Evilport and get it from D'ark, a 12th level shadow demon warlock.)

And if your playing the Scaled Game, then Muddy McMudd Face the Mud Merchant of Mudport, will be a 14 th level Expert anyway as the whole world levels up in advance of the Pcs.

In some respects it can just change it's role as the level goes up. That only gets you so far, but in that time you could work out a slow change anyway to give new life.

So level 0 you go to Muddy McMuddFace and friends for help against wolves
level 1 you and Muddy work together in some means against the wolf pack, and the odd thief
level 2 you help (take the lead) Muddy against the small local criminal gang that's been causing trouble in Mudport with a bit of help/interaction from the (L3) local Knight. Before you had to defer to it's rules, now your stronger.
level 3 you work with the knight against more substantial bandit threats from outside, you even get to go to Goldport on one of them.
level 4 you help the knight, featuring small quests to the mayor of Goldport
level 5 quests involve staying in Goldport but Mudport is still nominally your base.
level 6-8 much the same in Goldport, but still have connections to Mudport (if there's roving Bandits it's Mudport you get sent to, while another warrior goes to Sandport, unless the players chose otherwise but then it's their choice to leave their hometown behind).

And then even at level 12. If the DemonLord has agents everywhere, it might be easier to be recruited in your hometown ('where your perfectly expected to come back for a drink') rather than searching randomly in Evilport.

[Darth Ultron]

In some respects it can just change it's role as the level goes up. That only gets you so far, but in that time you could work out a slow change anyway to give new life.


Well, this example is mostly role playing and you can use any place for role playing no problem. But otherwise, what your talking about is the scaled game, where the whole world levels up with the player characters. So all NPC's will all ways be a couple levels about the PC's, though this would always make them ''more powerful'' per say.



And then even at level 12. If the DemonLord has agents everywhere, it might be easier to be recruited in your hometown ('where your perfectly expected to come back for a drink') rather than searching randomly in Evilport.

Again this is true from the role play side. But Agent D'om can't be a 2nd level commoner with a chest lock of DC 10 that has the Death Spell of Ultimate Doom Map. So yes the PC's can go to the old home town, but the agents there are weak and useless. Unless your doing the scaled game were D'om becomes a half demon troll 11th level blackguard with a half demon space mimic chest with the map.

But see it's two separate styles.

[jayem]

Not quite, it's a mix of 2 things.
1a) changing your perspective of the same level characters.
1b) changing which bit of the towns life you encounter (and the nature of the problems you deal with)

So in one sense there is a bit of a roleplay element, and leveling up.
But in those rather than the town magically changing to match those levels, they've always been there. (and theoretically could be dealt with out of order).

Of course if you want the town to always provide the same type of story, the same relationships, the same relative challenge and the same nominal level. Then yes, something has to go.

No, but agent D'om could always have been and remain disguised as a Level 2 commoner (this is likely to raise other questions, about his apparent inactivity before).
Be passing through (again needs some justification otherwise Mudport is special), come when you 'attack' the local outpost, demand tribute/servants from Mudport (and other places) allowing you an excuse to move, ...

[Satinavian]

In RPGs, you usually aren't paying against the win button - they're usually on your team. Playing against win buttons... I haven't thought this though, but I suspect that they're either strange, arbitrary, and railroady, or they're more of a puzzle / kinda the point of the game.

For playing with run buttons, here's my idea. Suppose you / your character are/is a ridiculously skilled receiver. Every time the ball gets near your hands, you catch it. But, in the final play of the championship game, you "roll poorly", and are unable to shake the guy who is on you. Your quarterback's defenses are crumbling, and he needs to get rid of the ball. Bob the Swift, not generally as good a receiver as you, plays his win button of unparalleled speed, and gets open, catching the winning ball for your team.

Are you upset at Bob for winning the game for your team?The games i play maintain symmetry here. If a win button exists in a game, it will be used against the PCs, if the antagonists have reasonable ccess to it. No handholding allowed or even wanted here.

Then again, this is also the standard that informs houserules and allowing/banning certain effects. Every such limit will be true for everyone and NPCs are to be played as tactically competent as PCs. No one wants to win against the holder of the idiot ball.

Let's take scrye and die off the table. Let's say teleport makes a very obvious, glowing, noisy, etc effect at the target area for, say, 5 actions / 5 rounds / whatever while you are teleporting before you appear. So it is only good for getting you ambushed, not for ambushing others. Do you still have an issue with teleport as a win button for travel?
Scry and die is bad. The reason scry and die is bad is not because it is too powerful or a win button. It is because it makes attacking so much easier than defending leading to everyone becoming paranoid and triggerhappy and making fast escalaton the logical choice in most conflicts. That is not something we like that is why we place limits on scry and die in every system that otherwise allows for it. The limits usually happen more to the scying part to avoid everyone waiting with actions and commitment until he knws what his opponents do. I mean "I scry my opponent and see him sitting over his crystall ball" was fun for the first time around, but should not become standard because scrying being that good that everyone does it as often as they can afford it.



They're all passive defences, which is fine for allowing you to achieve your objective uninterrupted (or if flight is of limited duration, so overlandflight is much more powerful than flight). But also does nothing to stop them achieving theirs. If you like against those characters it's a mutual "draw button". You could quite realistically get to a position where they don't play their card and you do play yours, or provoke a situation where a draw is a victory for you (variants of don't engage).And ? Mobility is a tactical advantage after all. If you have it and can make it vital, go for it.
In warfare the archetypical reaction to a more mobile but weaker force not willing to commit to field battle is to go for locations of strategic importance instead and that works reasonably well.


As a win button for travel, yesish, it wouldn't make any difference. It would still mean there can be absolutely no travel obstacles (as supposed to almost none). No interceptions, limited traps. So you would lose a lot of options of stuff happening to you while gaining options for places you can go to (easily), which depends on what you want. It may not be a problem.There are a lot of limits for both flight and teleportation that you still could make your travel adventure, if you wanted. While those limits should not be relevant in most travels (as most high level travels are pretty unchallanging anyway and it is good to save the time) there always are exceptions. The most simple form would revolve about transporting lots of people/goods you have to move in addition to the adventurers. Another popular one is having to either visit lots of waypoints or having to do something along the way.

[Lord Raziere]

Me, I don't want win buttons on my team. Its precisely because they're on my team that I don't want them.

STOP!

This is not because I don't like winning or any nonsense about being less effective or anything. Win buttons are honestly, a very bad way of being effective.

Quertus, you keep using examples of win buttons being used at the end- but no one uses those at the end. They use them at the beginning and skip the entire adventure. its effective, it solves everything more efficiently and faster than anything else....and thats why its bad. the adventure is over before it can be experienced. if I were a DM, I'd give you way less experience for scry and die than going through the entire dungeon. Why? because if you just scry and die, then say your done that is not lot a effort or investment in the adventure. you only get as much as you put into it, and if all you put into it is a few token win button efforts, you didn't earn as much experience as someone who put far more effort into their adventure risking their character and struggling through the battles. why? because the experience was an easy one, therefore how much exp do you think you get? not a lot.

its effective the same way having a grenade launcher is effective- sure you can blow up all your problems, but your not going to learn or develop much from that, because if you have a problem? blow it up. until you get to a problem a grenade launcher can't solve and your so used to solving things with a grenade launcher you try as hard as you can and it doesn't work. whereas if you don't have a grenade launcher, and solve a bunch of problems without it, you all the better for not needing it in the first place. I don't need win buttons, because they'd just make me dependent on them at best. that old saw about only having a hammer and everything looking like nails is something to keep in mind: you don't want your mind limited like that. there is a lot of nuance and possibilities you ignore if you think only in terms of "win" or fail" and thus "win button or lose". and hammers are of course not the best problem to solve everything. and there are some problems where hammers won't work no matter what- unless you know how to chop down a tree with a hammer?

and guess what? Win Buttons won't work for what I want exactly because they are win buttons. I don't want the certainty they provide. I don't want the safety the provide. Its simply too safe, not risky enough, too certain. Every certainty cuts off possibilities. Every possibility cut off narrows the stories that can be told. I want more possibilities, so that the GM and I can both have fun without me screwing up his plans or him screwing up mine. Win Buttons are just too hardline and abrupt when you need a soft, flexible touch for roleplaying most of the time. like using a Win Button is one step away from godmodding really, so why have them? its just too close for comfort.

[Jerrykhor]

I like win buttons, they force my DM to get creative and throw me more interesting problems, because he knows simple problems can usually be solved by win buttons. And that's fine, because you would be a pretty fail adventurer if you didn't even plan for the simple problems.

I like having a grenade launcher in case I need it, not because I love to spam it. I don't assume to have unlimited grenades. When the time for talk is over, when you meet people who just want to watch the world burn, you'll be glad to have it.

[RedWarlock]

Quertus, been thinking about this for a couple days. You mentioned people griping about win buttons vs griping about system balance. I think the thing is, system balance is a complex process, and many could be seeing the system AS balanced, *except* for the addition of those win-button effects. If the win button was removed or reduced, they may feel the system is more balanced.

Simple comparison example:

Blasting is considered less effective than SoD effects, and both are considered more effective than non-uber-charger mundane melee.

BUT

If you remove the SoD effects, then Blasting vs mundane melee is a closer comparison, closer to balanced.

People complain about win buttons, not in lieu of balance problems, but as the cause of them.

[jayem]

And ? Mobility is a tactical advantage after all. If you have it and can make it vital, go for it.
In warfare the archetypical reaction to a more mobile but weaker force not willing to commit to field battle is to go for locations of strategic importance instead and that works reasonably well.

True, but it does show the options are getting limited. The immediate encounter is potentially boring and resolved quickly and uneventfully.


Teleportation, If the intermediate threats are going to tax you in the slightest, it's probably also worth just running teleportation relays.
In 3.5 I make it that a Level 16 wizard can take (12 trips, 5 people) 60 people a day, (15*100/20) 75 days journey.
It's going to have to be a rather special journey to compete against that and be worth their while hiring you.
(There is of course a noticeable chance of at least one bad teleport, but in that case you just teleport out again)

[Vknight]

Too long didn't read the full thread.
Long and short is this.

People dislike them cause these wins come from wizards and people hate wizards its an old bias too want the squishy spellcaster too be useless except for huge explosions and this age old hate continues latent in our minds for ages... This is mostly sarcasm but definitely is somewhat true

The truth is it means 1 option becomes valid in the mind of people if there is 1 superior options most people will pick it. And when you know the superior option exists not picking it bothers you it pecks at you.
Because you want too have the choice and in 'lacking' it because there is a much more cost productive idea then you are unable too form a creative design.

In other words.

Unarmed/Melee is the best way too play in Fallout 3 and New Vegas so not playing that is mostly gimmick
If the DPS for 1 build is better you should always take it.
Or
If the utility removes the need for combat well still reward exp or removes the threat from the combat so there is no risk then you should always take it.

And that is the conundrum as acknowledging them without them forcing how you build and see your character.

[Lord Raziere]

In other words.

Unarmed/Melee is the best way too play in Fallout 3 and New Vegas so not playing that is mostly gimmick
If the DPS for 1 build is better you should always take it.
Or
If the utility removes the need for combat well still reward exp or removes the threat from the combat so there is no risk then you should always take it.

And that is the conundrum as acknowledging them without them forcing how you build and see your character.

Wrong. Best options are the enemies of creativity and diversity. There should be no best option, for maximum available character concepts and possible strategies to use. Optimization ruins all characters that don't conform to it by making everyone think an option is bad and thus avoid it. As soon as you say one option is better than the other you ruin the character concepts for everything that uses the worse one.

[RedWarlock]

Yes and no. Optimization is not the enemy, but it should be coming in at the cost of being able to do X, Y, or Z, in addition to being able to be the best at Q. It's a problem when Q can replace X and Y, and make Z inconsequential by removing its applicable situations.

[Lord Raziere]

Yes and no. Optimization is not the enemy, but it should be coming in at the cost of being able to do X, Y, or Z, in addition to being able to be the best at Q. It's a problem when Q can replace X and Y, and make Z inconsequential by removing its applicable situations.

A reasonable stance. However are you talking about optimization or specialization? Because what you speak of is specialization, great ability at the cost of flexibility, but optimization clearly doesn't care for specialization or paying the costs as long as it can evade them. and thus other people pay instead.

[Satinavian]

True, but it does show the options are getting limited. The immediate encounter is potentially boring and resolved quickly and uneventfully.What immediate encounter ? You see the enemy, decide that he is too strong and back off thanks to your superior mobility ? That is not an encounter in the D&D "challange" sense, it is basically part of establishing the scenario.

Teleportation, If the intermediate threats are going to tax you in the slightest, it's probably also worth just running teleportation relays.
In 3.5 I make it that a Level 16 wizard can take (12 trips, 5 people) 60 people a day, (15*100/20) 75 days journey.
It's going to have to be a rather special journey to compete against that and be worth their while hiring you.
(There is of course a noticeable chance of at least one bad teleport, but in that case you just teleport out again)Let's say the adventure is "evacuate a small town and surrounding villages and bring those thousands of civillians with hundreads of wagons and thousands of animals safely over the mountain range". That is a very classic and basic setup. And while your teleportation will help you here (bringing specificin items, people when needed, communicating, retreat option for scouting), you will most likely still travel the normal way instead of spending a hundread days teleporting people. The same is true for most of the other "making travel easy"-spells. They will all help, but they are all meant to fullfill the travel needs of less than 10 adventurers. You have all the regular travel obstacles. You need food. You need (lots of) water. You need to clear obstacles for the wagons. You need to scout. You need to handle threats along the way. All is far more difficult. (Also, lv. 16 is a tad high for that kind of challange)

[Darth Ultron]

What immediate encounter ? You see the enemy, decide that he is too strong and back off thanks to your superior mobility ? That is not an encounter in the D&D "challange" sense, it is basically part of establishing the scenario.
Let's say the adventure is "evacuate a small town and surrounding villages and bring those thousands of civillians with hundreads of wagons and thousands of animals safely over the mountain range". That is a very classic and basic setup.

Also note that by the time the Player Characters get the use of teleport, at 10th level or so, the adventures should be a lot less mundane. So it's not ''just'' move some NPC's across mundane distance, but more Evacuate the collapsing demi-plane of Krossa that only has one anchored portal to the Prime.

Way to many DM's are stuck giving simple, mundane encounters....when the PC's are demi gods.

[Max_Killjoy]

The answer, then, is to not use D&D for settings/campaigns where the PCs aren't intended to become demigods.

Which would of course require acknowledgement that D&D is not even close to a universal fantasy system, and is suited for a rather narrow range of things that sync up with its ballistic progression.


EDIT: to be clear, my intent here is not to trash D&D or anyone's enjoyment of it. My intent is to trash wild mismatches of system, setting, and/or "tone".

[BRC]

The answer, then, is to not use D&D for settings/campaigns where the PCs aren't intended to become demigods.

Which would of course require acknowledgement that D&D is not even close to a universal fantasy system, and is suited for a rather narrow range of things that sync up with its ballistic progression.
What? Impossible!


But seriously, you can kind of cheat the Demigod thing VIA strategic banning of certain spells and abilities (Stuff like Teleport), and cunningly scaling threats. 5E's bounded accuracy helps a lot with that, as larger groups of the same mooks you've been fighting all along remain threats. You can convince the players that their characters are merely Badasses well after after they've become effectively unkillable demigods who can lay waste to armies.

But, that falls apart, things get unwieldy pretty fast, and is more about psychology and subterfuge than any strength of the game mechanics. Even though, mechanically, the "mooks" your PCs are fighting could probably destroy a village single handedly, if you don't show them actually doing that, you can pass them off as merely "More Dangerous Orcs Than The Previous Orcs You Fought".

[Telok]

5E's bounded accuracy helps a lot with that, as larger groups of the same mooks you've been fighting all along remain threats.

5e's bounds only apply primarily to skills, attack bonus, and spell saves. It applies to a lesser extent to AC. Hit points scale very fast and spell effect scaling (what level particular effects come on line) is largely unchanged. Jumping off cliffs to get to the bottom faster because the fall can't seriously hurt you, or walking through fire because it's mundane and you're higher than 3rd level, are alive and well. Plus it goes the other way too, the PCs are needed to adventure because of what the can accomplish beyond killing the monsters because mooks with bows are more dangerous to monster hit points.

[Pex]

Also note that by the time the Player Characters get the use of teleport, at 10th level or so, the adventures should be a lot less mundane. So it's not ''just'' move some NPC's across mundane distance, but more Evacuate the collapsing demi-plane of Krossa that only has one anchored portal to the Prime.

Way to many DM's are stuck giving simple, mundane encounters....when the PC's are demi gods.


The answer, then, is to not use D&D for settings/campaigns where the PCs aren't intended to become demigods.

Which would of course require acknowledgement that D&D is not even close to a universal fantasy system, and is suited for a rather narrow range of things that sync up with its ballistic progression.


EDIT: to be clear, my intent here is not to trash D&D or anyone's enjoyment of it. My intent is to trash wild mismatches of system, setting, and/or "tone".

And I get chastised with a cardboard cut-out smack for saying the same thing.
:smallsigh:

[BRC]

5e's bounds only apply primarily to skills, attack bonus, and spell saves. It applies to a lesser extent to AC. Hit points scale very fast and spell effect scaling (what level particular effects come on line) is largely unchanged. Jumping off cliffs to get to the bottom faster because the fall can't seriously hurt you, or walking through fire because it's mundane and you're higher than 3rd level, are alive and well. Plus it goes the other way too, the PCs are needed to adventure because of what the can accomplish beyond killing the monsters because mooks with bows are more dangerous to monster hit points.

Attack Bonus and AC are the relevant for the specific case I was thinking of (Using larger groups of enemies to raise the threat while keeping the world grounded).

In 3.5, there rapidly comes a point where the Soldiers of the Evil Empire simply cannot hit you anymore, so it's perfectly safe to go for a stroll in front of 30 archers, because they only have a +3 attack bonus, and you have 24 AC. Anything short of the Dread Knights of Doom can't deal damage, no matter how many of them there are.

In 5e, it takes a lot more arrows to bring you down (As you are now an army-destroying Demigod), but the arrows can still hit you, and do hurt you. While you were once threatened by 1 Archer, it may now take 10 archers to kill you over the same period of time, but it's not like you've ascended to the point where you can take on basically any number of basic archers, because only one in 20 shots will actually hit you.

[NichG]

On another note, I have never quite gotten the hang of D&D's XP for overcoming a challenge regardless of the method.

Say, for example, that the PCs need to get into a dungeon, but an overly protective great wyrm gold dragon blocks the entrance, not wanting PCs to be hurt. She can easily be bluffed, persuaded, or bribed to let the PCs pass, and can even bypassed stealthily fairly easily if the PCs can make skill checks with difficulties of 10 or so. HOWEVER, if the players do decide to fight their way past her, she is a CR 24 behemoth.

What CR should I give this encounter again?

Easiest way to do it is to give a constant base amount of XP per session in which the party actually did anything of significance. Players only don't get this XP if they spend the entire session shopping/debating what the do/mucking around in town. Bump it up by 20%-50% whenever some multi-session thing is finally concluded. Forget about trying to use CRs for XP.

Outside of this basic advancement schema, XP is purely a way to incentivize certain behaviors over others. If killing the great wyrm is worth more XP than bargaining, you're saying 'I want you guys to kill things not talk to them'. If talking is worth more than killing, vice versa. Rather than do this at a meta level, which can produce some resentment, when I want to use XP or something like it to incentivize I give it an actual in-character corporeal form so that the characters at least can justify why they're acting a certain way without needing the explicit metagame motivation of 'the GM is paying us to'. So e.g. 'when people resolve ancient grudges that have left their imprint upon the world, the energies of the grudge are freed up and become your strength' or similar ideas.

[Talakeal]

I have never quite gotten the hang of D&D's XP for overcoming a challenge regardless of the method.

Say, for example, that the PCs need to get into a dungeon, but an overly protective great wyrm gold dragon blocks the entrance, not wanting PCs to be hurt. She can easily be bluffed, persuaded, or bribed to let the PCs pass, and can even bypassed stealthily fairly easily if the PCs can make skill checks with difficulties of 10 or so. HOWEVER, if the players do decide to fight their way past her, she is a CR 24 behemoth.

What CR should I give this encounter again?

[Pex]

Attack Bonus and AC are the relevant for the specific case I was thinking of (Using larger groups of enemies to raise the threat while keeping the world grounded).

In 3.5, there rapidly comes a point where the Soldiers of the Evil Empire simply cannot hit you anymore, so it's perfectly safe to go for a stroll in front of 30 archers, because they only have a +3 attack bonus, and you have 24 AC. Anything short of the Dread Knights of Doom can't deal damage, no matter how many of them there are.

Personal taste whether this is a problem, neither of which is wrong. Where it's not a problem the narrative is likely the PCs are supposed to be a threat to the Lieutenants and Generals of the BBEG. The mooks are flavor text. They're a threat to the city populace the PCs are protecting but aren't supposed to be to the PCs. Where it is a problem the narrative is likely the DM cares a lot about realism.


In 5e, it takes a lot more arrows to bring you down (As you are now an army-destroying Demigod), but the arrows can still hit you, and do hurt you. While you were once threatened by 1 Archer, it may now take 10 archers to kill you over the same period of time, but it's not like you've ascended to the point where you can take on basically any number of basic archers, because only one in 20 shots will actually hit you.

You have it backwards. In 5E it takes more arrows not because you're harder to hit but because it takes more damage to drop you. Your AC is likely a few points higher than when you started the game, but you're still vulnerable to 1st level adversaries.


I have never quite gotten the hang of D&D's XP for overcoming a challenge regardless of the method.

Say, for example, that the PCs need to get into a dungeon, but an overly protective great wyrm gold dragon blocks the entrance, not wanting PCs to be hurt. She can easily be bluffed, persuaded, or bribed to let the PCs pass, and can even bypassed stealthily fairly easily if the PCs can make skill checks with difficulties of 10 or so. HOWEVER, if the players do decide to fight their way past her, she is a CR 24 behemoth.

What CR should I give this encounter again?

Presuming the party is way below level 24 or even 20, the CR is their level provided they did not try to fight the dragon because they used their current abilities to get by it. If they were stupid enough to attack they deserve their fate. Unless the DM is a complete jerk it's blatantly obvious when a way above their CR creature engages the party that's it's not for a fight even if it was a black dragon or a lich or a beholder. It's a parley situation, and if it's the point of the encounter to get passed the creature of course there's going to be a way to do so without fighting.

[BRC]

You have it backwards. In 5E it takes more arrows not because you're harder to hit but because it takes more damage to drop you. Your AC is likely a few points higher than when you started the game, but you're still vulnerable to 1st level adversaries.


That is certainly what I meant to say. Is that not exactly what I said?

In 3.5, at low levels, the arrows can hit you. At high levels, they cannot, so you reach a point where 40 archers are not appreciably more threatening than 20, and the archers can basically be ignored.

in 5e, at low levels, the arrows can hit you, and each one represents substantial damage. At high levels, you're only getting hit slightly less, but the damage from each arrow is a much smaller fraction of your total HP. As a result, 40 archers are far more dangerous than 20.

[Talakeal]

Presuming the party is way below level 24 or even 20, the CR is their level provided they did not try to fight the dragon because they used their current abilities to get by it. If they were stupid enough to attack they deserve their fate. Unless the DM is a complete jerk it's blatantly obvious when a way above their CR creature engages the party that's it's not for a fight even if it was a black dragon or a lich or a beholder. It's a parley situation, and if it's the point of the encounter to get passed the creature of course there's going to be a way to do so without fighting.

In the above situation it is meant to be a parley situation, but what if the players don't see it that way?

What if they attack the dragon and manage to pull off a win by the skin of their teeth? Beating a monster high above their CR, battered and bloody, but still victorious?

Do you give them the intended XP for the parley encounter (which will be seen as a screw job) or do you give them the full killing the monster CR, which is a fabulous and unexpected reward and will now encourage the players to play dumber to make sure they don't miss out on such hauls in the future?

[Pex]

In the above situation it is meant to be a parley situation, but what if the players don't see it that way?

What if they attack the dragon and manage to pull off a win by the skin of their teeth? Beating a monster high above their CR, battered and bloody, but still victorious?

Do you give them the intended XP for the parley encounter (which will be seen as a screw job) or do you give them the full killing the monster CR, which is a fabulous and unexpected reward and will now encourage the players to play dumber to make sure they don't miss out on such hauls in the future?

Give the full CR XP. If they continue and keep winning, perhaps it's the DM who is doing something wrong running the monster. Alternatively, stop using way above their CR solo creatures as a means of parley. No opponent exists without the DM's permission. It wasn't the players who put the CR 24 gold dragon in their way.

[Drakevarg]

In the above situation it is meant to be a parley situation, but what if the players don't see it that way?

What if they attack the dragon and manage to pull off a win by the skin of their teeth? Beating a monster high above their CR, battered and bloody, but still victorious?

Do you give them the intended XP for the parley encounter (which will be seen as a screw job) or do you give them the full killing the monster CR, which is a fabulous and unexpected reward and will now encourage the players to play dumber to make sure they don't miss out on such hauls in the future?

I'd argue any DM that can't make the Obvious Unwinnable Encounter actually unwinnable isn't doing their job very well. When the creature's sole purpose is to be an obstacle that can't simply be plowed through, you're under no obligation to play fair. Why stop at a CR 24 dragon? Throw in class levels, minions, magic items, an arena that blatantly favors the dragon. None of it matters, the only point is to write in big flaming letters "IF YOU FIGHT, YOU DIE" over the scene. If the players parley like you intended, it was all just set dressing. If they don't, it's just a stylized way of saying "Rocks Fall Everyone Dies."

[Telok]

The point of the hp/ac thing was missed, but whatever.

Why is the knock spell a win button compared to a thief with a 99% open locks? Or is it not a win button in ad&d?

Why is teleporting a win button in 3.p while things like flying carpets and phantom steed aren't. Are all forms of fast and easy travel win buttons?

I really can't tell. The things that keep getting called win buttons don't seem like it to me. Maybe it's my job as a programmer, I meet a new system or program and the first to do is to learn how it works and how to make it work for me. I don't see teleport and fly as 'winning' travel or anything because they're part of the system to be dealt with or used as needed.

[Drakevarg]

Why is teleporting a win button in 3.p while things like flying carpets and phantom steed aren't. Are all forms of fast and easy travel win buttons?

Well, this part's easy. Flying carpets and such make travel faster and easier. Teleportation skips travel. Nothing can happen between Point A and Point B because one is simply replaced by the other under the caster's feet.

[Talakeal]

I'd argue any DM that can't make the Obvious Unwinnable Encounter actually unwinnable isn't doing their job very well. When the creature's sole purpose is to be an obstacle that can't simply be plowed through, you're under no obligation to play fair. Why stop at a CR 24 dragon? Throw in class levels, minions, magic items, an arena that blatantly favors the dragon. None of it matters, the only point is to write in big flaming letters "IF YOU FIGHT, YOU DIE" over the scene. If the players parley like you intended, it was all just set dressing. If they don't, it's just a stylized way of saying "Rocks Fall Everyone Dies."

My goal was not to railroad the players or create an unwinnable encounter, I was simply trying to figure out how to deal with "quantum CR" creatures.

Is there any RAW about when the DM determines the CR of an encounter?


Easiest way to do it is to give a constant base amount of XP per session in which the party actually did anything of significance. Players only don't get this XP if they spend the entire session shopping/debating what the do/mucking around in town. Bump it up by 20%-50% whenever some multi-session thing is finally concluded. Forget about trying to use CRs for XP.

Outside of this basic advancement schema, XP is purely a way to incentivize certain behaviors over others. If killing the great wyrm is worth more XP than bargaining, you're saying 'I want you guys to kill things not talk to them'. If talking is worth more than killing, vice versa. Rather than do this at a meta level, which can produce some resentment, when I want to use XP or something like it to incentivize I give it an actual in-character corporeal form so that the characters at least can justify why they're acting a certain way without needing the explicit metagame motivation of 'the GM is paying us to'. So e.g. 'when people resolve ancient grudges that have left their imprint upon the world, the energies of the grudge are freed up and become your strength' or similar ideas.

That is absolutely what I do now, but back in the day when I tried to run 3.5 by the books this was always an issue for me.

[Mechalich]

The point of the hp/ac thing was missed, but whatever.

Why is the knock spell a win button compared to a thief with a 99% open locks? Or is it not a win button in ad&d?

Why is teleporting a win button in 3.p while things like flying carpets and phantom steed aren't. Are all forms of fast and easy travel win buttons?

I really can't tell. The things that keep getting called win buttons don't seem like it to me. Maybe it's my job as a programmer, I meet a new system or program and the first to do is to learn how it works and how to make it work for me. I don't see teleport and fly as 'winning' travel or anything because they're part of the system to be dealt with or used as needed.

Largely it has to do with differences in degree rather than kind.

For instance, having a '+More than Enough' to a skill in 3.X isn't a win button under normal circumstances (the diplomancer is a special case due to how diplomacy works as a skill more than how the skill roll system functons). It just means you are really, really good at something to the point that you succeed 95% of the time in high stress situations for that skill no matter how tough the challenge is. That's useful, but it's a form of marginal utility. Most of the time being the world's best climber isn't going to matter any more than just being a really good climber. A win-button, means having some capability such that you just automatically succeed by utilizing some completely different mechanism.

So, for example, a spell that gives you an instant +20 to some skill check isn't a win button, it just means you get to temporarily be the best in the world at something, but if it turns out the challenge is beyond the best in the world - for example, making yourself the best in the world at chess means you still lose to computers - you can still lose. A win button allows you to completely bypass that challenge entirely - in the chess circumstance a win button would be a spell that automatically rearranges the board to award you checkmate so that you don't have to bother playing at all.

So phantom steed isn't a win button (at least not at low levels, its a bit different once you start getting additional movement modes) - it just provides you with a supernaturally awesome mount that's almost certainly better than the mount you currently have but it still a mount and things that will challenge an ordinary horse can conceivably challenge it.

A flying carpet, on the other hand, can be a win-button, as is anything that provides flight in a more or less continuous fashion, since it allows you to bypass any number challenges predicated on you not being able to fly. You're no longer moving faster on the ground, you're flying. The strategic picture changes completely as a result. If person X has a power that gives them access to flight, and person Y does not, then person X can bypass a whole array of challenges that remain significant problems for person Y. Looking at flying carpets specifically, well, watch Disney's Aladdin again, how many of the challenges in that movie does Aladdin bypass because he has a flying carpet? Quite a few, including the otherwise lethal challenge of being sent to the ends of the earth by Jafar.

Win buttons remove types of challenges from the playspace by providing a new kind of capability that overrides them. Now, if the win buttons are tightly managed by being on a restrictive resource budget that can be okay. Many video games are very successful at this and even specifically provide win buttons for occasional use, Omni-gel in Mass Effect 1 is a good example. This is much more challenging in multiplayer games than single-player ones and characters in multiplayer video games that have been granted a win button by accident (Bastion in Overwatch probably qualified) they tend to get nerfed hard by the developers. Tabletop has it the hardest of all because it is so much more open ended and win buttons can be abused much more broadly.

[Florian]

Why is teleporting a win button in 3.p while things like flying carpets and phantom steed aren't. Are all forms of fast and easy travel win buttons?

It´s not about fast and easy, it´s about being able to skip something entirely and that something actually being intended to be the games content.

The Thief with 99% Open Locks has done a serious investment into that ability and probably expects that situations will come up that this investment is of use.

The Rogue with a very high UMD and scrolls/wands for "bypass"-type spells doesn´t actually want to engage, but rather circumvent those encounters or, better, don´t have them come up in the first place, so to not "waste" those items.

It´s like, say, seeing "wall walking" as intended gameplay in a computer game or not. You skip content and spoil the challenge.

[Darth Ultron]

Which would of course require acknowledgement that D&D is not even close to a universal fantasy system, and is suited for a rather narrow range of things that sync up with its ballistic progression.

This is a very true statement. Somehow, a lot of people think D&D is, for really no reason, the universal fantasy system.


In the above situation it is meant to be a parley situation, but what if the players don't see it that way?

What if they attack the dragon and manage to pull off a win by the skin of their teeth? Beating a monster high above their CR, battered and bloody, but still victorious?

Do you give them the intended XP for the parley encounter (which will be seen as a screw job) or do you give them the full killing the monster CR, which is a fabulous and unexpected reward and will now encourage the players to play dumber to make sure they don't miss out on such hauls in the future?

This is where the D&D rules fall apart as D&D is a combat adventure game. Sure gamers and even designers can say D&D is whatever they want it to be, but you can't change the fact there is a whole chapter titled ''Combat'' and there is not a whole chapter titled ''Other things your character can do other then combat''. The rules here just fall back on the ''oh, DM just do what you think is right'' and then they skip on to the next combat related rule.



Is there any RAW about when the DM determines the CR of an encounter?


Sure, it's when the encounter is made by the DM.




Why is the knock spell a win button compared to a thief with a 99% open locks? Or is it not a win button in ad&d?

Why is teleporting a win button in 3.p while things like flying carpets and phantom steed aren't. Are all forms of fast and easy travel win buttons?

I really can't tell. The things that keep getting called win buttons don't seem like it to me. Maybe it's my job as a programmer, I meet a new system or program and the first to do is to learn how it works and how to make it work for me. I don't see teleport and fly as 'winning' travel or anything because they're part of the system to be dealt with or used as needed.

A lot of the complaints are not ''win buttons'', but more just normal standard player complaints.

Take like Oscar who just is not good at character building or optimization, he reads a D&D book or two and makes a sneaky character with a +10 to Stealth. then he dances around and tells everyone he has the greatest, sneakiest, stealthiest character 4Ever in all of D&D. Of course, poor Oscar is crushed when he meets Edgar, who has a character with Stealth +12.

Or take Frank, he wants to make a mundane character for his own reasons. So he chooses to ignore vast pages of the game rules that he does not ''like'' that say ''magic'', even things that would help his build and make his character better or stronger or more powerful. So Frank has his character, limited by his own choices, with a +10 Stealth and he thinks his character is the best ever...within his own self imposed limits. Of course, Frank will soon encounter someone with a Stealth of more then +10....

The two above are not 'win buttons', no matter how much a player complains.

[icefractal]

Say, for example, that the PCs need to get into a dungeon, but an overly protective great wyrm gold dragon blocks the entrance, not wanting PCs to be hurt. She can easily be bluffed, persuaded, or bribed to let the PCs pass, and can even bypassed stealthily fairly easily if the PCs can make skill checks with difficulties of 10 or so. HOWEVER, if the players do decide to fight their way past her, she is a CR 24 behemoth.I'll point out that this only comes up if you changed the dragon to work that way. Normally, a Great Wyrm has extremely high Spot/Listen/Sense Motive, blindsense, and a giant hoard that your 100gp bribe is a tiny rounding error to. So none of those things are easy.

But yeah, it's a problem. Same issue if the PCs decide to lay siege to a town and fight its entire militia rather than go through the customs inspection (which would have gone without incident). Only awarding xp for things that progress the plot seems like railroading, but I don't really want to encourage fighting things for the hell of it either. Advancement at a set rate over time has some selling points.

[Friv]

This is where the D&D rules fall apart as D&D is a combat adventure game. Sure gamers and even designers can say D&D is whatever they want it to be, but you can't change the fact there is a whole chapter titled ''Combat'' and there is not a whole chapter titled ''Other things your character can do other then combat''.

Chapter 8: Adventuring.

[Talakeal]

Chapter 8: Adventuring.

Or chapter four: skills.

[RazorChain]

Chapter 8: Adventuring.


Or chapter four: skills.

Guys don't ruin this for DU! Chapter 4: skills is about skills to be more effective in combat, you need athletics to jump on the head of the dragon to smite him! Chapter 8: Adventures is clearly a chapter on how to find Combat.....so both chapters tie directly to the Combat chapter not "Other things your character can do other then combat"

[Darth Ultron]

Guys don't ruin this for DU! Chapter 4: skills is about skills to be more effective in combat, you need athletics to jump on the head of the dragon to smite him! Chapter 8: Adventures is clearly a chapter on how to find Combat.....so both chapters tie directly to the Combat chapter not "Other things your character can do other then combat"

Well, that is true, of course.

Though your just going for the low hanging fruit to make a jab too. So, ok, I'll type slow and add details to my question:

Show me the whole chapter in the Players Handbook that deals with a complex detailed D20 system for the resolution of game actions that is supported by the rules in all most every other chapter. And then you'd have to show me the Encounter Manual, a big thick heavy Core Rule Book that contained nothing but cover to cover non-combat things descriptions and details.

[Cluedrew]

I'll type slow... {Starts Laughing}

Thanks for that. Anyways, D&D defiantly has more support for combat than any other aspect of the game. I believe that was my #3 three thing against it when I made the list of reasons I don't like D&D. Still it has some, minimal, support for those things as well.

[Drakevarg]

Show me the whole chapter in the Players Handbook that deals with a complex detailed D20 system for the resolution of game actions that is supported by the rules in all most every other chapter. And then you'd have to show me the Encounter Manual, a big thick heavy Core Rule Book that contained nothing but cover to cover non-combat things descriptions and details.

Why does it have to be core? Sure, it's the basic backbone D&D is built around, but saying that anything published after that 'doesn't count' as a focus of gameplay is like arguing any features added to an Early Access game after Alpha 1.0 can't count as core gameplay. I've got well over a dozen splatbooks sitting on my sofa's backrest and I'd be willing to bet that one of the biggest topic categories among them is "rules for stuff that isn't combat." (Right up there with the ever-increasing spell list, because of course.)

[Koo Rehtorb]

The ironic thing is that things like skills exist in D&D precisely so you can roll a die, move on, and get back to the focus of the game (combat).

[Friv]

Well, that is true, of course.

Though your just going for the low hanging fruit to make a jab too.

I mean, that's a fair statement, that is absolutely what I was doing. In fact, I apologize. It was an unnecessary jab born out of frustration.


So, ok, I'll type slow and add details to my question:

Show me the whole chapter in the Players Handbook that deals with a complex detailed D20 system for the resolution of game actions that is supported by the rules in all most every other chapter. And then you'd have to show me the Encounter Manual, a big thick heavy Core Rule Book that contained nothing but cover to cover non-combat things descriptions and details.

But the reason I get frustrated is that every conversation with you turns into a classic "there are only two options" fallacy. In this case, the fallacy is that the only two options are "everything gets as much screen time as combat" or "nothing but combat matters at all or is supported".

Obviously, D&D has more support for combat than non-combat, and combat tends to be a bigger part of the game than social interaction or crafting or whatnot. That is not the same thing as D&D being only good for combat, because the world is not binary.

[Vknight]

Wrong. Best options are the enemies of creativity and diversity. There should be no best option, for maximum available character concepts and possible strategies to use. Optimization ruins all characters that don't conform to it by making everyone think an option is bad and thus avoid it. As soon as you say one option is better than the other you ruin the character concepts for everything that uses the worse one.

Ummm kind of rude Raziere and then you just pointed out what I was saying in another way.

I just said that the best options well they are fun using them and knowing them are and can be a negative to creativity.

Calm down buddy no need too hope up and be so offended

[RazorChain]

Well, that is true, of course.

Though your just going for the low hanging fruit to make a jab too. So, ok, I'll type slow and add details to my question:

Show me the whole chapter in the Players Handbook that deals with a complex detailed D20 system for the resolution of game actions that is supported by the rules in all most every other chapter. And then you'd have to show me the Encounter Manual, a big thick heavy Core Rule Book that contained nothing but cover to cover non-combat things descriptions and details.



Thanks for typing slow...I needed that :smallbiggrin:


I agree, D&D is mostly focused on combat, if you can't kill your problem then the problem aint worth dealing with.

[Darth Ultron]

Why does it have to be core? Sure, it's the basic backbone D&D is built around, [QUOTE]

Well, this is exactly why. Sure they could have published a Adventure Handbook, but they did not.

[QUOTE=Friv;22321169]
But the reason I get frustrated is that every conversation with you turns into a classic "there are only two options" fallacy. In this case, the fallacy is that the only two options are "everything gets as much screen time as combat" or "nothing but combat matters at all or is supported".

Obviously, D&D has more support for combat than non-combat, and combat tends to be a bigger part of the game than social interaction or crafting or whatnot. That is not the same thing as D&D being only good for combat, because the world is not binary.

Well, maybe you should ask yourself why you have such an extreme reaction? So at the start of this topic I said ''D&D is a combat adventure game'', and while there is a whole chapter on detailed, hard, crunchy Combat, there is not a similar chapter for ''non-combat''.

Oddly, you seem to agree with that...but then still jumped to ''this will become the two way thing''? And then you jumped to where I did not say "everything gets as much screen time as combat" or "nothing but combat matters at all or is supported". Sure, it would have been great if they made a chapter called Actions...but they did not.

I'm not so sure you'd say D&D is ''good'' or only combat....but you will sure be disappointed if you try to play the game any way else.

Like you could make a Core D&D Diplomacy character using the tiny bit of rules for that skill.....but really all you will do is role a skill check. It would be like doing combat with ''ok, you can only make a single standard attack every round that does one point of damage and we won't use any other combat rules. ''

[Friv]

Well, maybe you should ask yourself why you have such an extreme reaction?

I have an extreme reaction because your appearance in a thread means that whatever it was about is over, and now it's about trying to explain the concept of a sliding scale to you. And that means that really interesting conversations die on the vine, which makes me sad.


So at the start of this topic I said ''D&D is a combat adventure game'', and while there is a whole chapter on detailed, hard, crunchy Combat, there is not a similar chapter for ''non-combat''.

Oddly, you seem to agree with that...

I did not.

but then still jumped to ''this will become the two way thing''? And then you jumped to where I did not say "everything gets as much screen time as combat" or "nothing but combat matters at all or is supported". Sure, it would have been great if they made a chapter called Actions...but they did not.

They did.


I'm not so sure you'd say D&D is ''good'' or only combat....but you will sure be disappointed if you try to play the game any way else.

Like you could make a Core D&D Diplomacy character using the tiny bit of rules for that skill.....but really all you will do is role a skill check. It would be like doing combat with ''ok, you can only make a single standard attack every round that does one point of damage and we won't use any other combat rules. ''

(Emphasis mine). And right there is where you do the "two way thing". Immediately after claiming that you didn't say that nothing but combat matters, you say that nothing but combat matters.

To be clear.

Just because D&D focuses more on combat than on non-combat skills does not mean that D&D does not do non-combat things. There is a wide excluded middle there, as usual. The reason you think I'm agreeing with you in the early bit is your refusal to engage with it.

But you are right about one thing. It is pointless to argue with you. I can't logic you out of a position you didn't logic yourself into. So I will stop participating in threads that you're in, and you can go ahead and pretend that this means you won.

[Drakevarg]

Why does it have to be core? Sure, it's the basic backbone D&D is built around,

Well, this is exactly why. Sure they could have published a Adventure Handbook, but they did not.

Quite right, they produced about half a dozen.

Frostburn, Sandstorm, Stormwrack, arguably Manual of the Planes. All contain combat content but half of their rules are centered around navigation and survival.
Heroes of Battle/Horror. Both involve combat tangentially, but the focus is more on tone and scenario construction. Combat only really comes in as a conflict resolution device.

And those are just the ones I'm personally familiar with. Nobody's arguing that D&D doesn't have a combat focus. Obviously it does, it's a fantasy action/adventure game. But saying it flat out doesn't try to do anything else is just plainly wrong.

[Mutazoia]

Like you could make a Core D&D Diplomacy character using the tiny bit of rules for that skill.....but really all you will do is role a skill check. It would be like doing combat with ''ok, you can only make a single standard attack every round that does one point of damage and we won't use any other combat rules. ''

Except, that D&D is a role playing game, not a roll playing game. There are some rules to assist people who don't really get into the role, and try to "act out" all the conversations in a "Diplomacy" roll. After all, the characters you are playing are stronger, smarter (usually), and more charismatic than you are. Expecting a flesh and blood player, to suddenly have all the suave and cunning of an 18 charisma is laughable.

The rules of the game, exist to help players arbitrate what ever scenario they may find themselves in. Combat has a large chunk of rules, because it is, by it's very nature, the most abstract method of conflict resolution. Every thrust and parry, every swing, stab, and block....the damage mitigating properties of various armor types. All of these things need to be represented, other wise everything boils down to a children's game of Cowboys and Indians. ("BANG! I got you! No you didn't you missed! No I didn't, I got you right between the eyes!)

The other, non-combat, aspects of the game, were left more or less alone, because the designers assume a certain degree of agency on the part of the players. Your are suppose to ROLE PLAY, in a role playing game, and turn to the dice only when the character is attempting something that they are capable of, that the player obviously is not. Still, at least a minimum of effort on the part of the player to role play a bit, before letting a skill roll decide, should be attempted.

[Darth Ultron]

The other, non-combat, aspects of the game, were left more or less alone, because the designers assume a certain degree of agency on the part of the players. Your are suppose to ROLE PLAY, in a role playing game, and turn to the dice only when the character is attempting something that they are capable of, that the player obviously is not. Still, at least a minimum of effort on the part of the player to role play a bit, before letting a skill roll decide, should be attempted.

Except the rules, and most games, don't support or believe in this idea.

If the designers did want role play, why not include that in the rules? The 3/4 E rules only say ''follow the almighty rules! All hail the Rules!''. You need to go back to 1E or 2E to get the designers to say things like ''this is your game and play it however you want the rules are just our suggestions''.

The 3E and such rules don't even have that ''minimum of effort'' thing you mentioned,As A Rule. And Wow 3X would be such a better game if they would have included a rule like that.

[Drakevarg]

If the designers did want role play, why not include that in the rules? The 3/4 E rules only say ''follow the almighty rules! All hail the Rules!''. You need to go back to 1E or 2E to get the designers to say things like ''this is your game and play it however you want the rules are just our suggestions''.

Where the heck do you get this idea? Rule Zero is one of the first things that comes ups up in the DMG. Practically every other book contains suggestions for variant rules and one of them (Unearthed Arcana) is literally nothing but. D&D has ALWAYS taken the stance that its rules can be altered freely by the DM, because of course they can. The only place where the rules as written are holy scripture is in TOp threads that turn up in places like here, because they provide a standard baseline between groups who don't know each other's houserules. Everyone recognizes 3.5's rules are bonkers and lackluster in many respects, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find an actual running group that doesn't use at least a few houserules.

[oxybe]

I'll be honest, I'm amazed others are still trying to engage DU in honest conversation. I've long since given up trying to figure out his just... alien attitude when it comes to so many aspects in gaming.

I found my solution to the DU conundrum some time ago but i still find reading people quoting him and trying to get him to understand that nuance is possible and not everything is framed in his, for lack of a better terminology, heavily misguided black & white "role play" vs "rollplay" attitude.

[Darth Ultron]

Where the heck do you get this idea? Rule Zero is one of the first things that comes ups up in the DMG. Practically every other book contains suggestions for variant rules and one of them (Unearthed Arcana) is literally nothing but. D&D has ALWAYS taken the stance that its rules can be altered freely by the DM, because of course they can. The only place where the rules as written are holy scripture is in TOp threads that turn up in places like here, because they provide a standard baseline between groups who don't know each other's houserules. Everyone recognizes 3.5's rules are bonkers and lackluster in many respects, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find an actual running group that doesn't use at least a few houserules.

Rule Zero is one of the first things to come up in the DMG? This is true for 1E and 2E, but you won't find anything after 3E. The 3.5e/4e the rules are clear and pretty fixed: players and DM are equal and subject to the rules as law; RAW is an option.

For example the 2E DMG has this advice: Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don’t just let the game sit there, and don’t become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can’t figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don’t fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one.

But 3E on, it's ''follow the almighty rules!''

[Drakevarg]

Rule Zero is one of the first things to come up in the DMG? This is true for 1E and 2E, but you won't find anything after 3E. The 3.5e/4e the rules are clear and pretty fixed: players and DM are equal and subject to the rules as law; RAW is an option.

For example the 2E DMG has this advice: Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don’t just let the game sit there, and don’t become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can’t figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don’t fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one.

But 3E on, it's ''follow the almighty rules!''

Have you... literally never read the DMG?


When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell other people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook.

It's on the second page of Chapter One. The only thing it says even remotely contrary to that is "if you have to make something up, be consistent about it."

[PhoenixPhyre]

Have you... literally never read the DMG?



It's on the second page of Chapter One. The only thing it says even remotely contrary to that is "if you have to make something up, be consistent about it."

And 5e is built around rulings, not rules. RAW as a thing is a forum concept, not a defined game concept in any edition.

[Mutazoia]

Except the rules, and most games, don't support or believe in this idea.

If the designers did want role play, why not include that in the rules? The 3/4 E rules only say ''follow the almighty rules! All hail the Rules!''. You need to go back to 1E or 2E to get the designers to say things like ''this is your game and play it however you want the rules are just our suggestions''.

The 3E and such rules don't even have that ''minimum of effort'' thing you mentioned,As A Rule. And Wow 3X would be such a better game if they would have included a rule like that.

Said games, are designed for people who wanted "Roll play" vs "Role Play". The people who can't, or can't be bothered to, actually get into their character and play things out. They just want to roll some dice, and have **** figured out for them. It's gaming by accountancy.

Believe it or not, gaming survived quite well, even thrived, with out a rule governing how stinky your characters farts are.

[Satinavian]

The dice rolling is nice for people who don't want to try risky things where the success is wholly dependend on the DM judgement. Who don't want to play the game "guess what the DM is thinking".
Pretty much all the resons to apply rules and dice in combat instead of narrating your attacks and let the DM judge the success apply to out of combat situations in the same way.

And basically the main reason why D&D has turned back into a combat simulator over the years is that many players stick to the parts of the game that has rules instead of handwave. In all the games with better/more rules for out of combat stuff you will see players do more out of combat stuff. It is not uncommon in other traditional fantasy RPGs to go 3,4 sessions without a single fight. And still using rules for most challanges.

I mean, yes, there are some really old gamers with fond memories of times when rules and combat where that deadly that trying to guess what out-of-the-box solution the DM wanted/trying to convince him that your hare-brained scheme should totally work was the better strategy. But pretty much eveyone who knows subpar DMs (meaning most of the gamers) would not really like to play that kind of game with one of them. That is why it is not the standard today anymore and why people prefer rules to rulings of mediocre DMs instead of trying to find the perfect group constallation where everyone is on the same wavelength and has similar ideas about how the rulings should go.

It is also onee of the reasons why so many non D&D games take power from the DM and give it to the whole group : To make the game work when the group does not agree with the DMs rulings and even houserules.

[Darth Ultron]

It's on the second page of Chapter One. The only thing it says even remotely contrary to that is "if you have to make something up, be consistent about it."

Yes, wow, the page does say the DM is the final arbiter of the rules. That is sure not Rule Zero. And it is Light Years away from 2E with: Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don’t just let the game sit there, and don’t become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can’t figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don’t fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you

The 3.5 DMG is saying ''everyone must follow our Almighty Rules! Oh, and the DM is the final arbiter of the (almighty)rules.

The 2E DMG says to the DM ''make up whatever you want'' and the best line every of: "You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you."

[PhoenixPhyre]

The 3.5 DMG is saying ''everyone must follow our Almighty Rules!

Citation needed. I have found no statement to that effect anywhere in the text of the PHB or the DMG. The idea that the text is controlling (and that deviations from it are "wrong" in some sense) is a completely concocted idea that is foreign to the actual rules.

"RAW as binding on everyone" is a concept that started in players' minds (reinforced by forum discussions), not a defined game concept. This is especially true in 5e, where you're explicitly told to make the rules your own, and that the PHB and DMG are suggestions, defaults if you will.

Unless you're playing in an organized play setting (Adventurer's League for 5e, Pathfinder Society for PF), there are no rules that bind DMs except those that the table will enforce by leaving if necessary. Everything else is up to the table and the DM. Everyone house rules at least something, whether they know they're doing so or not. No human being can do otherwise--only a computer can follow rules exactly. 5e goes and accepts that, making it a de jure part of the game where it was de facto and implied before.

This is one of the primary distinctions between a TTRPG and a CRPG or board-game. Board games have complete, closed rules. They cover every possible scenario and are binding on everyone. TTRPGs, by their open-ended nature, don't. And can't. And this is a good thing.

[Cazero]

Yes, wow, the page does say the DM is the final arbiter of the rules. That is sure not Rule Zero. And it is Light Years away from 2E with: Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don’t just let the game sit there, and don’t become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can’t figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don’t fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you
...Combining "final arbiter of the rules" with "being in charge of making up the adventure" allows the DM to unilateraly decide wether or not any given rule apply to any given situation. It sure isn't as explicit as 2E did (wich was clearly better), but it's the same level of authority.

[Cosi]

I think there's a distinction that's being missed here, and it's an important one.

If the game doesn't cover a situation, the DM making something up so that the game can continue to function is good.

If the game does cover a situation, but the result of the existing rules is something the DM doesn't like, the DM changing the rules so that what he wants to happen happens is bad.

Conflating the two is how you end up with either "the DM is god and can do what he wills" and "the DM must exactly follow all the rules all the time".

That said, in general you should always try to default to following the rules (or pre-established and group-supported house rules), because doing otherwise undermines the stability that is a necessary precondition for players being able to engage with the world in a meaningful way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think there's a distinction that's being missed here, and it's an important one.

(A) If the game doesn't cover a situation, the DM making something up so that the game can continue to function is good.

(B) If the game does cover a situation, but the result of the existing rules is something the DM doesn't like, the DM changing the rules so that what he wants to happen happens is bad.

Conflating the two is how you end up with either "the DM is god and can do what he wills" and "the DM must exactly follow all the rules all the time".

(C) That said, in general you should always try to default to following the rules (or pre-established and group-supported house rules), because doing otherwise undermines the stability that is a necessary precondition for players being able to engage with the world in a meaningful way.

General notes: This doesn't include the difficult part: deciding if the rules cover a situation. That's going to allow for subjective decisions in many cases (if not all).

(A) Agreed.

(B) Partially agree. Yes, changing things to force a particular outcome is bad (most of the time) because it violates the expectations and the unwritten contract of the game. Changing things to avert an unintended bad outcome (everyone dies due to the interaction between multiple rules that no one saw coming or intended, for example) can be good. This takes DM skill and the balance of what is a good change and what is a bad change is table dependant. In addition, D&D does not require that the DM shows their work. 3.5e was more fixed this way, but 5e (for example) expects that monsters can do things that players can't (and vice versa). Thus, the rules aren't as fixed as they seem.

(C) Agreed. Having clear defaults is important, and having trust between players and DM is critical. If everyone trusts that everyone is there to have a good time, even drastic changes can work out. Without trust, you can't really play a good game.

For me, violating that trust by intentionally and unnecessarily acting to ruin someone's fun is a prime wrong for player or DM. On the other hand, the DM does have to be able to say "no" (especially to things that would ruin the fun for others). Like many things, it's a complicated balancing act.

[Max_Killjoy]

What if the game rules cover something, but the GM sitting at the actual table with the actual group, realizes that the way the rules cover that something is detrimental to the fun, the characters, the story, whatever else might matter... or that all the players hate the way that particular rule works?

Should the GM adhere to the rules in that situation, and potentially tank the entire campaign and maybe the group, in order to maintain some sort of "rules purity"?

[Drakevarg]

Yes, wow, the page does say the DM is the final arbiter of the rules. That is sure not Rule Zero. And it is Light Years away from 2E with: Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don’t just let the game sit there, and don’t become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can’t figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don’t fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you

The 3.5 DMG is saying ''everyone must follow our Almighty Rules! Oh, and the DM is the final arbiter of the (almighty)rules.

The 2E DMG says to the DM ''make up whatever you want'' and the best line every of: "You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you."

When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell other people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook.

And this is the part where I give up, as we've reached the point where even when the fact that you're wrong is spelled out for you, you'll twist the words into some incoherent nonsense that somehow makes you right.

[Cosi]

Yes, changing things to force a particular outcome is bad (most of the time) because it violates the expectations and the unwritten contract of the game. Changing things to avert an unintended bad outcome (everyone dies due to the interaction between multiple rules that no one saw coming or intended, for example) can be good.

I would tend to be very wary of this. If the DM is changing the rules to avoid "bad outcomes", that carries with it a very high risk of removing danger from the game. Succeeding on a longshot because I and the rest of the party have the skills, planning, and abilities to beat odds that look insurmountable is good. Succeeding on a longshot because the DM won't let us fail for fear of disrupting the campaign is bad.


Should the GM adhere to the rules in that situation, and potentially tank the entire campaign and maybe the group, in order to maintain some sort of "rules purity"?

Well, I'm going to shift the goalposts a little and point out that I said that the DM changing something if he doesn't like it is bad. If the group doesn't like it, they should create a houserule to change it. Yes, I did say they -- the rules, including clauses like "the DM can change things" or "the DM can make things up", are a contract agreed to by the group, and the DM should have no more power to unilaterally alter that contract than any other participant. But if everyone wants to change it, it can and should change.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'd say there's a significant difference between protecting the PCs from the consequences of their own actions, and protecting the PCs from strange or unforeseen or nonsensical rules outcomes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd say there's a significant difference between protecting the PCs from the consequences of their own actions, and protecting the PCs from strange or unforeseen or nonsensical rules outcomes.

Or forcing a "bad" (meaning negative) outcome despite player actions. This would be like fiat capturing everybody despite the party having plenty of resources (and taking adequate steps) to not be captured.

But yes, I completely agree that there's an important difference. If the rules say A + B = everyone dies (or something like that) and no one knew that when they did A and B (separately, both for good reasons that made sense), killing everyone would be a bad thing. That's the kind of on-the-spot ruling that a DM has to do. It's a decision--"this rule does not apply (or will not be applied) here to avoid breaking things."

The basic idea is that the rules were made for the game, not the game for the rules. If the rules don't help, change them. You also can't know that the rules aren't helping beforehand (always). Systems that constrain DM freedom also tend to have more narrative structure than simulation. This is necessary--no rule set can be written that covers all eventualities without contradictions while still being playable by humans and allowing open-ended play. Board games can (not being open ended). CRPGs can (by both sacrificing open-endedness and human adjudication). TTRPGs can't.

In a game like D&D, the DM has great power. Complete power, as it turns out. Except he can't force people to play with him. That's the check. With great power comes great responsibility (as someone once said :smalltongue:)

[Tinkerer]

I do think that the biggest problem with 3.X being viewed as a "rules are absolute" is... well... us. The explosion of the online community. With 3.X thanks to the OGL the rules were more accessible than ever before and the number of build/optimization/RAW threads was quite spectacular. Rapid searching tools meant that you didn't need to go hunting for information anymore, it was as accessible as you could want. Video games often receive a good chunk of the blame since people were more used to exploiting rules but I think it was this desire for a common ground which was the biggest factor. That way when you were talking to someone halfway across the world you could rest assured that you were referring to the same ideas. The books weren't the problem, the community was. Buuuut I could also be full of it :smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do think that the biggest problem with 3.X being viewed as a "rules are absolute" is... well... us. The explosion of the online community. With 3.X thanks to the OGL the rules were more accessible than ever before and the number of build/optimization/RAW threads was quite spectacular. Rapid searching tools meant that you didn't need to go hunting for information anymore, it was as accessible as you could want. Video games often receive a good chunk of the blame since people were more used to exploiting rules but I think it was this desire for a common ground which was the biggest factor. That way when you were talking to someone halfway across the world you could rest assured that you were referring to the same ideas. The books weren't the problem, the community was. Buuuut I could also be full of it :smalltongue:

I think this as well. Also note that in the pre 3.X era, there wasn't a quick, searchable way of communicating these ideas. 3.X and the internet became big at about the same time (late 1990s, early 2000). The internet hive mind has created this "RAW is absolute, violating it is a sin" thing out of whole cloth. It was for a good purpose, but it has philosophical consequences that (in my opinion) have tainted later thought. We on forums are reading into the rules many things that were never placed there. Call them traditional interpretations or whatever.

[Pex]

I do think that the biggest problem with 3.X being viewed as a "rules are absolute" is... well... us. The explosion of the online community. With 3.X thanks to the OGL the rules were more accessible than ever before and the number of build/optimization/RAW threads was quite spectacular. Rapid searching tools meant that you didn't need to go hunting for information anymore, it was as accessible as you could want. Video games often receive a good chunk of the blame since people were more used to exploiting rules but I think it was this desire for a common ground which was the biggest factor. That way when you were talking to someone halfway across the world you could rest assured that you were referring to the same ideas. The books weren't the problem, the community was. Buuuut I could also be full of it :smalltongue:

I can agree with that considering how my actual play experience was and is a lot different than forum theory crafting.

[Cosi]

I think "RAW is inviolate" is by far better than the ideology it displaced (or attempted to) -- that the DM is god. The game is better when it doesn't prioritize the opinions and enjoyment of one player over others. It's a group game, and decisions like "what kind of game do we want to play" should rest with the group.

I also think that the widespread adoption of the internet had other effects on gaming. Notably, I think it's responsible for a lot of the perception of 3e being more broken than other editions. I have no doubt there's broken stuff in 2e, but there were never forums dedicated to discovering.


I'd say there's a significant difference between protecting the PCs from the consequences of their own actions, and protecting the PCs from strange or unforeseen or nonsensical rules outcomes.

Sure. If the DM grabs the Book of Vile Darkness demon that has CL You Die blasphemy, he probably needs to do something. But that's a pretty rare, and a pretty extreme, case. You should be careful, because it's easy to think you're doing that when you're actually letting the PCs off the hook for their choices. Also, you should look for resources to help you avoid this. Far better to discover that the demon in question is broken on the forums than after it TPKs your table.


In a game like D&D, the DM has great power. Complete power, as it turns out. Except he can't force people to play with him. That's the check. With great power comes great responsibility (as someone once said :smalltongue:)

I think the better way of looking at it is that the DM has no more power than any other player. Anyone at the table can say anything they want, and the rest of the group can either accept that or not. The rules are a framework for determining what kinds of statements the group is going to accept. It's true that historically rules (and the broader social contract that governs a gaming group) have invested a lot of power in that position, but it's not inherent to it, and a model of gaming that focuses on moving decisions that have traditionally been thought of as the purview of the DM more towards the group as a whole is a good one.

[BRC]

What if the game rules cover something, but the GM sitting at the actual table with the actual group, realizes that the way the rules cover that something is detrimental to the fun, the characters, the story, whatever else might matter... or that all the players hate the way that particular rule works?

Should the GM adhere to the rules in that situation, and potentially tank the entire campaign and maybe the group, in order to maintain some sort of "rules purity"?

I believe Rules Purity holds no merit on it's own. But, sticking to a consistent, and known ruleset DOES have many advantages. Using rule 0 can chip away at those advantages. It can lead to the sensation that the game has become Arbitrary, that the players cannot make intelligent choices because they don't know how the rules are actually going to be applied to the choices they make.


I think "RAW is inviolate" is by far better than the ideology it displaced (or attempted to) -- that the DM is god. The game is better when it doesn't prioritize the opinions and enjoyment of one player over others. It's a group game, and decisions like "what kind of game do we want to play" should rest with the group.


Eh, I disagree, about the first bit anyway.

In most cases, the GM's goal is for the entire group to have fun, and they wield their power accordingly. The social contract of most RPG groups is that the PC's are going to win. Their victory may not be guaranteed, it may be costly, but the Players usually sit down expecting to win, and the GM usually sits down expecting to see the PC's win.

This means that a GM (generally) isn't trying to derive their enjoyment from a mechanical victory over the PC's. When they do, we call them "Killer GMs", or "GM vs PC mindset", or other words that translate to "Bad".

A Player on the other hand, IS striving for mechanical victory. If they go too far, we call them "Munchkins" or "Min-Maxxers", but the general tendency to seek mechanical victory is expected and encouraged.

1) The fact is that RAW is incomplete. There is no RPG ruleset that precisely covers every possible situation that could come up in a game, and those that do (Like 5e) usually defer to the GM's ruling for that particular case. In the "GM is God" scenario, the GM's ruling is final, and any player that wishes to challenge it must convince the GM to accept their interpretation. But, the GM is (Ideally) motivated only by the desire to make everybody have fun, so they're as close to Impartial as you can get. Since the GM isn't invested in the idea of a mechanical victory over the players (or they shouldn't be anyway), they're not encouraged to reject the Player's proposal to give themselves an advantage.

Players on the other hand ARE expected to be invested in mechanical victory, which means that it is in their interest to argue for advantageous rulings. Mechanically speaking, it's advantageous for a Player to simply keep arguing until the group accepts their interpretation of the RAW.

2) RAW is limiting. If you play by pure RAW, you are limited to pure RAW. By RAW, there are no rules for "Cutting a chandelier cord so that it lands on an enemy's head and riding the Rope up". It's not an especially hard exercise to figure out (A Dex Save to dodge out of the way, vs damage based on how heavy the Chandelier is and how far it's falling), but that's not especially covered by RAW, and there are still interpretations to cover (Such as the DC of the Save). There isn't a movement option in the book for riding the Rope up, so how far, how fast, or what you might do, are not covered. This leads to arguments and debates, unless somebody (The GM) has the authority to declare a simple ruling (DC 14 save for the guy standing under it, you're at the top of the stairs now, having consumed half your movement).

3) RAW is abusable. Consider the D&D 3.5 Diplomacy rules, which puts a DC 25 Diplomacy check on turning somebody from "Hostile" to "Indifferent". That's not an especially difficult check, considering that "Hostile" could mean anything from some random Bandits who want your gold, to your worst enemy who watched you torture their entire family in front of them. In normal play, this isn't a problem, because most GM's will ignore this table in most instances. But, if you declare RAW above All, then technically any enemy, no matter how much they hate you, is merely 1 minute and a DC 25 diplomacy check away from indifference. Players want to Win, they're motivated to abuse RAW in ways the GM is not.


While I agree with the general principle that the Group as a whole should decide the type of game being played, I don't think strict adherence to RAW is the best way to do that. The Group as a whole should decide on the type of game before it starts, but once it starts the GM should have executive authority to make the best game of that type that they can.

[Drakevarg]

I think the better way of looking at it is that the DM has no more power than any other player. Anyone at the table can say anything they want, and the rest of the group can either accept that or not. The rules are a framework for determining what kinds of statements the group is going to accept. It's true that historically rules (and the broader social contract that governs a gaming group) have invested a lot of power in that position, but it's not inherent to it, and a model of gaming that focuses on moving decisions that have traditionally been thought of as the purview of the DM more towards the group as a whole is a good one.

I reject this mindset wholesale. If tabletop gaming was a fully democratic process, I wouldn't play it, as DM or as a player. That kind of distribution of authority is for freeform RP or playing make-believe (which is basically the same thing but described more condescendingly). A good DM makes or breaks a tabletop game, playing both narrator and referee.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I reject this mindset wholesale. If tabletop gaming was a fully democratic process, I wouldn't play it, as DM or as a player. That kind of distribution of authority is for freeform RP or playing make-believe (which is basically the same thing but described more condescendingly). A good DM makes or breaks a tabletop game, playing both narrator and referee.

I can see it working for certain styles of game with systems designed around that idea.

For D&D (and most other TTRPGs), the responsibilities of the DM/GM/ST are fundamentally different than those of the players. This leads to them having different rule-sets and play-style. I've known great players (both mechanically and role-playing) who made horrible DMs. The mind-set required is quite different.

A DM has a bunch of roles that are different from a player's roles (non-exhaustive list):

* Referee/adjudicator. Even if there is no variance from the rules, someone must decide what rule applies.
* Narrator/User Interface: Everything the players know about the localized situation is funneled through the DM. Their actions also feed through the DM and the DM decides how to put them into effect in the shared fiction. The DM may (but does not have to) delegate some of that responsibility.
* Foil: The players act, the world reacts (and vice versa). Who controls the world? The DM.
* Secret keeper: Many things in game must be hidden from the players until the appropriate moment. This includes the identity of the villain (for mysteries), the facts about areas the PCs haven't been to/know nothing of, etc. The DM keeps track of these and decides when to reveal them.

The two (player and DM) are asymmetric. As a clear example: the game can continue if one player is missing (most of the time). It can't if the DM is absent, unless someone steps up and takes that role. If the DM plays an active character, that's a DMPC (which are usually a bad thing).

[flond]

I reject this mindset wholesale. If tabletop gaming was a fully democratic process, I wouldn't play it, as DM or as a player. That kind of distribution of authority is for freeform RP or playing make-believe (which is basically the same thing but described more condescendingly). A good DM makes or breaks a tabletop game, playing both narrator and referee.

Or you know, for the many sorts of GMless games that are by no means pure freeform. :P

[Max_Killjoy]

IMO, focusing on "power" misses all the points.

[Pex]

I think "RAW is inviolate" is by far better than the ideology it displaced (or attempted to) -- that the DM is god. The game is better when it doesn't prioritize the opinions and enjoyment of one player over others. It's a group game, and decisions like "what kind of game do we want to play" should rest with the group.

I also think that the widespread adoption of the internet had other effects on gaming. Notably, I think it's responsible for a lot of the perception of 3e being more broken than other editions. I have no doubt there's broken stuff in 2e, but there were never forums dedicated to discovering.



Back then was rec.games.frp.dnd newsgroup. Discussions were quite lively. Conversations weren't that much different than now, but since it was 2E that's what the rules were to be discussed. Personal bias, I was a strong advocate of the Stormwind Fallacy back then though it had no name. Back then it was about having high ability scores and the ability to roleplay. It took awhile but I finally convinced the majority in the newsgroup that having high stats does not mean you are bad at roleplaying, mainly an 18 in your prime. High stats != bad roleplaying. 3E came out at about the same time web-based forums started causing traffic in the newsgroup to die down. Eventually all newsgroups became defunct as web browsers took hold.

[Cosi]

I believe Rules Purity holds no merit on it's own. But, sticking to a consistent, and known ruleset DOES have many advantages. Using rule 0 can chip away at those advantages. It can lead to the sensation that the game has become Arbitrary, that the players cannot make intelligent choices because they don't know how the rules are actually going to be applied to the choices they make.

That is the exact argument people make in favor of prioritizing purity of rules. Like, almost word for word.


In most cases, the GM's goal is for the entire group to have fun, and they wield their power accordingly. The social contract of most RPG groups is that the PC's are going to win. Their victory may not be guaranteed, it may be costly, but the Players usually sit down expecting to win, and the GM usually sits down expecting to see the PC's win.

This means that a GM (generally) isn't trying to derive their enjoyment from a mechanical victory over the PC's. When they do, we call them "Killer GMs", or "GM vs PC mindset", or other words that translate to "Bad".

Okay, so let's think about this.

Assume for a second that there are two kinds of DMs, good and bad. Good DMs will do whatever they can to maximize group fun. Bad DMs will do whatever they can to minimize group fun.

In which of these scenarios is giving the other players more of a voice in terms of concerns like "what level should the campaign happen" or "how much of a focus should there be on combat versus non-combat" going to be bad?

Good DMs will be happy to get better input on what players want. That's good. Bad DMs will be forced to operate with constraints that make it harder for them to hard the experience of the rest of the group -- at least, insofar as rules can constrain bad DMs. That's also good.


A Player on the other hand, IS striving for mechanical victory. If they go too far, we call them "Munchkins" or "Min-Maxxers", but the general tendency to seek mechanical victory is expected and encouraged.

Well that's also an artifact of the flawed "DM is God" paradigm. The point of the game is to have fun, but if you set up the DM's job as "thwart the PCs" rather than "operate an engaging world", you're going to necessarily shift from a cooperative approach ("let's play the game that is most fun") to a competitive one ("let's stop the DM from squishing us").


Players on the other hand ARE expected to be invested in mechanical victory, which means that it is in their interest to argue for advantageous rulings. Mechanically speaking, it's advantageous for a Player to simply keep arguing until the group accepts their interpretation of the RAW.

Why? As a player, my interest is (or should be) in creating a story that is compelling. That's the whole point of role-playing. If I just wanted to win, I would play a competitive game like Starcraft or Call of Duty. The fact that I have instead sat down to play a cooperative game should indicate that my goal is not to subjugate the rest of the group.

Really, "one DM, four players" is the wrong paradigm entirely. It's more helpful to say "five players, one of whom plays the world".


3) RAW is abusable. Consider the D&D 3.5 Diplomacy rules, which puts a DC 25 Diplomacy check on turning somebody from "Hostile" to "Indifferent". That's not an especially difficult check, considering that "Hostile" could mean anything from some random Bandits who want your gold, to your worst enemy who watched you torture their entire family in front of them. In normal play, this isn't a problem, because most GM's will ignore this table in most instances. But, if you declare RAW above All, then technically any enemy, no matter how much they hate you, is merely 1 minute and a DC 25 diplomacy check away from indifference. Players want to Win, they're motivated to abuse RAW in ways the GM is not.

Yes, the game is broken sometimes. Two things:

First, that's a designer problem, not a table problem. That problem should be fixed by the designers, not the table. Just like problems like "Joe is a jerk and insults the other players" should be fixed by not playing with Joe, not by dropping rocks on Joe's character. Solve problems where they emerge, not other places. Obviously, this solution is imperfect, because the game does have rules issues, which leads to...

Second, the DM making an immediate ruling is a bad fix. It leads to stupid rulings that cause new problems further down the line. Ideally, table the issue, then work out a fix when the game isn't running. Otherwise you get dumb rulings that make the game worse. Also, treat your players in a way that allows them to interact with this process as neutral participants trying to find the optimal solution, rather than self-interested belligerents that want to cheat out advantages on everyone else. If you can't do that, play a competitive game instead of trying to hack a cooperative one.


While I agree with the general principle that the Group as a whole should decide the type of game being played, I don't think strict adherence to RAW is the best way to do that.

The rules have to be fixed. Otherwise you can't role-play. If the rules aren't stable, I can't know what effect my character's actions will have. If I can't know that, I can't know what action my character would take. And since determining what action my character would take is what role-playing is, I can't role-play.


The Group as a whole should decide on the type of game before it starts, but once it starts the GM should have executive authority to make the best game of that type that they can.

Why just the GM? Why shouldn't the whole group try to make the game as good as it can be? If you can trust the DM to do that, why not the players?


I reject this mindset wholesale. If tabletop gaming was a fully democratic process, I wouldn't play it, as DM or as a player. That kind of distribution of authority is for freeform RP or playing make-believe (which is basically the same thing but described more condescendingly). A good DM makes or breaks a tabletop game, playing both narrator and referee.

I'm not saying, "full democratic". I don't think the table should vote on monster actions, or what the king does, or the setting's history. I'm saying that having the rules reflect the interests and desires of the whole table, rather than the interests and desires of one person at that table can only be an improvement.

[BRC]

That is the exact argument people make in favor of prioritizing purity of rules. Like, almost word for word.

But, here's the thing.

I don't think "Purity of the Rules" is important. I think having a consistent, and known, ruleset is important. But a ruleset can be consistent, known when relevant, and ripped to shreds, riddled with Houserules and ad-hoc ruling.

The question is one of Relevancy.

Provided a rule is known at the moment it is relevant, either because it's written in the book, or because the GM just decided how to handle it in the moment, that is fine.

The ground can be unknown, provided it is stable, and provided you can see ahead before you take each step.



Okay, so let's think about this.

Assume for a second that there are two kinds of DMs, good and bad. Good DMs will do whatever they can to maximize group fun. Bad DMs will do whatever they can to minimize group fun.

In which of these scenarios is giving the other players more of a voice in terms of concerns like "what level should the campaign happen" or "how much of a focus should there be on combat versus non-combat" going to be bad?

There are two decisions here. One is about the type of game being run (Level, Combat vs Non-Combat, themes), another is who has authority while the game is being played.

The first should be made, or at least agreed to, by the Players. Usually, it is. Traditionally, a campaign comes together when a GM proposes the idea to their players (I want to run a 1-15 D&D game set in a norse-mythology inspired setting). The Players give their tacit approval by agreeing to play.
Other times, the GM will say "Okay, what type of game do I want to run", and solicits feedback. Both these systems are fine, as is any other system that results in the players knowing what sort of game they're going to be playing.

But, this differs from the concept of Authority during play. The Players may (Should) have an equal voice the type of game being run, but they are not the ones Running it.

As far as determining the TYPE of game being played, I'd say the GM has a bit more leverage, as they should, since they have to put a lot more work into the game than the players do. But, as always, their only real move is to either accept, or walk away and ask the players to find somebody else to GM. Just as the Player's only real move is to walk away and choose not to play.


Running the game is a different story.


Well that's also an artifact of the flawed "DM is God" paradigm. The point of the game is to have fun, but if you set up the DM's job as "thwart the PCs" rather than "operate an engaging world", you're going to necessarily shift from a cooperative approach ("let's play the game that is most fun") to a competitive one ("let's stop the DM from squishing us")



Why? As a player, my interest is (or should be) in creating a story that is compelling. That's the whole point of role-playing. If I just wanted to win, I would play a competitive game like Starcraft or Call of Duty. The fact that I have instead sat down to play a cooperative game should indicate that my goal is not to subjugate the rest of the group.


Really, "one DM, four players" is the wrong paradigm entirely. It's more helpful to say "five players, one of whom plays the world".

This assumption shifts from game to game. There are many games without a GM, or who position the GM as "The Player who Plays the World", a co-storyteller on more equal footing to the Players.
But, such assumptions are baked into the system of the game. In the powers and roles the game gives to the GM and players.
D&D and many other games turn to the GM and say "look at your players. It's your job to run them through an exciting adventure in an engaging world. Here are great powers at your disposal." Then, to the Players the game says "Look at your GM. They are going to try to destroy you and thwart you at every turn. Here is a single character, an extraordinary inhabitant of a fantastical world. You have control over them, and them alone. Do Whatever you can to help your character succeed."

This is a psychological trick. By setting up the GM as an all-powerful adversary, the game gives the players a thrill of triumph when they succeed. Even if they KNOW that the GM built the adventure specifically FOR the Players to triumph, that adversarial thrill of triumph is part of the experience being sold.




Yes, the game is broken sometimes. Two things:

First, that's a designer problem, not a table problem. That problem should be fixed by the designers, not the table. Just like problems like "Joe is a jerk and insults the other players" should be fixed by not playing with Joe, not by dropping rocks on Joe's character. Solve problems where they emerge, not other places. Obviously, this solution is imperfect, because the game does have rules issues, which leads to...

Second, the DM making an immediate ruling is a bad fix. It leads to stupid rulings that cause new problems further down the line. Ideally, table the issue, then work out a fix when the game isn't running. Otherwise you get dumb rulings that make the game worse. Also, treat your players in a way that allows them to interact with this process as neutral participants trying to find the optimal solution, rather than self-interested belligerents that want to cheat out advantages on everyone else. If you can't do that, play a competitive game instead of trying to hack a cooperative one.

The rules have to be fixed. Otherwise you can't role-play. If the rules aren't stable, I can't know what effect my character's actions will have. If I can't know that, I can't know what action my character would take. And since determining what action my character would take is what role-playing is, I can't role-play.


Sometimes you can't table the issue. Sometimes you're in the middle of combat and you need to resolve how kicking a barrel down the stairs at your enemies will be handled.
Ideally, the GM has delivered their ruling BEFORE the player has committed to the relevant action, so that if the GM's interpretation is not to the player's liking, they may choose to do something else. The purpose of a rules adjucation is not to "Gotcha" the players into wasting resources or actions, it's to keep the game moving.



Why just the GM? Why shouldn't the whole group try to make the game as good as it can be? If you can trust the DM to do that, why not the players?


The whole group is trying to make the game as good as it can be, but they've been given different roles to do so in. In order to make the best heroic fantasy game, the Players are encouraged to adopt the mindset of the Heroes as much as possible, to seek Victory over all else. Most of the time, THAT is what is most fun.

It can be difficult to relax that mindset, especially not if they know that by blustering loudly enough, they CAN sway things in their favor, even if it's detrimental to the game as a whole. Normally, that tendency is tempered by the knowledge that, in the end, the final decision lies with the GM, so bluster and argument won't take you too far.

I don't trust the players to maximize the fun of the group, because that isn't their job. Their job is to inhabit their characters and triumph against seemingly impossible odds. That's what the game assumes they'll try to do, and it's not fair to ask them to turn that off at the drop of a hat.

A "Good" ruling is one that makes the game more fun, whether or not it helps the Players.

The GM doesn't expect to Win. They're not trying to Win. They're trying to make everybody have a good time. That's the mindset we tell GM's to adopt at the table, and so they don't need to deviate from it to make a "Good" ruling.

[Mutazoia]

In most cases, the GM's goal is for the entire group to have fun, and they wield their power accordingly. The social contract of most RPG groups is that the PC's are going to win. Their victory may not be guaranteed, it may be costly, but the Players usually sit down expecting to win, and the GM usually sits down expecting to see the PC's win.

Except, that you don't "win" a role playing game. Sure, sometimes your character defeats the BBEG and saves the world. Sometimes your character is (eventually) excreted out of a monsters anal cavity, in a brown, lumpy, stinky mess.

If you know that you are always going to win...where's the fun? With out challenge, and the very real possibility of failure, you might as well be playing a video game with GOD mode turned on. (Which segways back to the hate for "I win" buttons.)

[Lord Raziere]

Except, that you don't "win" a role playing game. Sure, sometimes your character defeats the BBEG and saves the world. Sometimes your character is (eventually) excreted out of a monsters anal cavity, in a brown, lumpy, stinky mess.

If you know that you are always going to win...where's the fun? With out challenge, and the very real possibility of failure, you might as well be playing a video game with GOD mode turned on. (Which segways back to the hate for "I win" buttons.)

If you optimize to the point where you can defeat any form of reasonable failure outside of ridiculously contrived scenarios using those I Win buttons while still claiming that you like failure to exist while making sure you never experience it, then why not go with the game that dispenses with the optimization clutter entirely and makes a lot more characters viable doing so? To me, the one your arguing against just sounds like a more honest version of the one your arguing for. optimization is the god mode. the difference between that the narrative game is, if your going to achieve the god mode through your own pointlessly byzantine effort anyways, whats the point of all that failure you talk about at all?

[Mutazoia]

If you optimize to the point where you can defeat any form of reasonable failure outside of ridiculously contrived scenarios using those I Win buttons while still claiming that you like failure to exist while making sure you never experience it, then why not go with the game that dispenses with the optimization clutter entirely and makes a lot more characters viable doing so? To me, the one your arguing against just sounds like a more honest version of the one your arguing for. optimization is the god mode. the difference between that the narrative game is, if your going to achieve the god mode through your own pointlessly byzantine effort anyways, whats the point of all that failure you talk about at all?

Optimization is for "munchkins" and "Min-Maxers"

But on a more serious note, those that have to have their characters "Optimized", are roll playing, more than they are role playing.

[Satinavian]

The question is one of Relevancy.

Provided a rule is known at the moment it is relevant, either because it's written in the book, or because the GM just decided how to handle it in the moment, that is fine.Kind of agree here. But it is pretty hard to make all the rulings before they become relevant. It is not always obvious what the players plan to do before they try it. There can be preparations and even character build choices that can be invalidated by an ad-hoc-houserule.

Ad hoc rulings should be restricted to minor (group doesn't want to waste time) and unique (if it is recurring, you can make a proper houserule between/after sessions) situations, not more.


This assumption shifts from game to game. There are many games without a GM, or who position the GM as "The Player who Plays the World", a co-storyteller on more equal footing to the Players.
But, such assumptions are baked into the system of the game. In the powers and roles the game gives to the GM and players.
D&D and many other games turn to the GM and say "look at your players. It's your job to run them through an exciting adventure in an engaging world. Here are great powers at your disposal." Then, to the Players the game says "Look at your GM. They are going to try to destroy you and thwart you at every turn. Here is a single character, an extraordinary inhabitant of a fantastical world. You have control over them, and them alone. Do Whatever you can to help your character succeed."

This is a psychological trick. By setting up the GM as an all-powerful adversary, the game gives the players a thrill of triumph when they succeed. Even if they KNOW that the GM built the adventure specifically FOR the Players to triumph, that adversarial thrill of triumph is part of the experience being sold.Really ?

Sorry, i think that is a stupid way to look at it. Not only are pretty much all players occassionally DMs and don't have conflicting ideas about the job of DM depending on the role on a particular table, nearly all players know and expect a not adversarial game. It is basically all over the new-player-introductions that the DM is not supposed to be an adversary and that this whole thing is cooperative.


The whole group is trying to make the game as good as it can be, but they've been given different roles to do so in. In order to make the best heroic fantasy game, the Players are encouraged to adopt the mindset of the Heroes as much as possible, to seek Victory over all else. Most of the time, THAT is what is most fun.Disagree. Pretty much all metagame decisions players are encouraged to make are about making the game fun for the group (e.g. not stealing each others spotlight, even if it would be more efficient, using the stupid adevture hook even if not really convinced, staying at the group average optimization level ...) and pretty much all metagame decisions that bring power and/or victory but diminish fun are frowned upon (see pretty much all munchkin, game-breaker complaints). In a normal game players are expected to try to make the game fun for everyone not any less than the DM is expected to do.

I don't trust the players to maximize the fun of the group, because that isn't their job. Their job is to inhabit their characters and triumph against seemingly impossible odds. That's what the game assumes they'll try to do, and it's not fair to ask them to turn that off at the drop of a hat.I do trust my plaers as DM and my ülayers trust me. That is why houserules are always done democratically (even if that usually ends with the one interested in changing stuff proposes a rule and people not interested in that stuff accept it anyway). And that is why many DMs, while still theoretically have the power to make rulings, are not only willing to discuss those rulings when a player complains (which really rarely happens), they often let certain players with deep knowledge of some part of the game make the ruling instead, trusting their expertise and fairness.

That is how we get houserules people actually like and how we get pretty good rulings that work well with the rules.


A "Good" ruling is one that makes the game more fun, whether or not it helps the Players.

The GM doesn't expect to Win. They're not trying to Win. They're trying to make everybody have a good time. That's the mindset we tell GM's to adopt at the table, and so they don't need to deviate from it to make a "Good" ruling.That DMs want to make good, fun rulings is only a third of the requirement. the second third is the ability to know what the players find fun, the third is the competente to pack that into a rule/ruling.

Overall i see much better results with all the players involved in those decisions.

Even more, i am nowadays pretty suspicious about DMs who don't want to share this power. It screems to me "I had a lot of players object to my decisions and houserules in the past and couldn't convince them and had to force it through by appeal to DM authority. Maybe I am actually not that good at making rules but would never admit that and take criticism as an attack on my person. It could also be that i need complete control over everything that happens at the table to tell my story. Or even worse, to just feel powerful."

I mean, there are good DMs out there. But those usually don't get complaints about their rulings. And usually have really compelling reasons for their houserules. They don't need to be granted the sole power to rule, in practice they already have it by virtue of making good decisions people go along with anyway. They are not defensive about DM privileges they don't need.

[Pex]

Here we go again, back to optimizers don't care about roleplaying garbage. BadWrongFun!

[Lord Raziere]

Here we go again, back to optimizers don't care about roleplaying garbage. BadWrongFun!

No, its clear that they care just as equally about roleplaying.

I just question the mechanical necessity of the optimization clutter they use to achieve the same basic state of a consistent PC victory that characterizes any long-running campaign. If all the complex optimization clutter does the same basic purpose as simply agreeing that its about the story. to cooperate with one another, and that the PCs will win in the end, whats really the point of the clutter?

[Max_Killjoy]

Optimization is for "munchkins" and "Min-Maxers"

But on a more serious note, those that have to have their characters "Optimized", are roll playing, more than they are role playing.

Those are probably two separate axes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_(mathematics)). Or three.

Mechanical optimization, role vs roll, and how adept at roleplaying the player is, aren't really sliding along the same single scale.

[BRC]

Except, that you don't "win" a role playing game. Sure, sometimes your character defeats the BBEG and saves the world. Sometimes your character is (eventually) excreted out of a monsters anal cavity, in a brown, lumpy, stinky mess.

You don't "Win" the game, but you "Win" the encounter.


Kind of agree here. But it is pretty hard to make all the rulings before they become relevant. It is not always obvious what the players plan to do before they try it. There can be preparations and even character build choices that can be invalidated by an ad-hoc-houserule.

Ad hoc rulings should be restricted to minor (group doesn't want to waste time) and unique (if it is recurring, you can make a proper houserule between/after sessions) situations, not more.

Agreed.


Sorry, i think that is a stupid way to look at it. Not only are pretty much all players occassionally DMs and don't have conflicting ideas about the job of DM depending on the role on a particular table, nearly all players know and expect a not adversarial game. It is basically all over the new-player-introductions that the DM is not supposed to be an adversary and that this whole thing is cooperative.

I'm not saying that GM's and Players are not two different types of people. I'm saying that they adopt different mindsets at the table. A Player might argue for a ruling that they would never accept as a GM.


Disagree. Pretty much all metagame decisions players are encouraged to make are about making the game fun for the group (e.g. not stealing each others spotlight, even if it would be more efficient, using the stupid adevture hook even if not really convinced, staying at the group average optimization level ...) and pretty much all metagame decisions that bring power and/or victory but diminish fun are frowned upon (see pretty much all munchkin, game-breaker complaints). In a normal game players are expected to try to make the game fun for everyone not any less than the DM is expected to do.
I do trust my plaers as DM and my ülayers trust me. That is why houserules are always done democratically (even if that usually ends with the one interested in changing stuff proposes a rule and people not interested in that stuff accept it anyway). And that is why many DMs, while still theoretically have the power to make rulings, are not only willing to discuss those rulings when a player complains (which really rarely happens), they often let certain players with deep knowledge of some part of the game make the ruling instead, trusting their expertise and fairness.

That is how we get houserules people actually like and how we get pretty good rulings that work well with the rules.

Even more, i am nowadays pretty suspicious about DMs who don't want to share this power. It screems to me "I had a lot of players object to my decisions and houserules in the past and couldn't convince them and had to force it through by appeal to DM authority. Maybe I am actually not that good at making rules but would never admit that and take criticism as an attack on my person. It could also be that i need complete control over everything that happens at the table to tell my story. Or even worse, to just feel powerful."

I mean, there are good DMs out there. But those usually don't get complaints about their rulings. And usually have really compelling reasons for their houserules. They don't need to be granted the sole power to rule, in practice they already have it by virtue of making good decisions people go along with anyway. They are not defensive about DM privileges they don't need.

Okay, this is the part where I enter the realm of speculation, because, honestly, I don't have experience with situations where the GM doesn't have final say over the rules. It's entirely possible that I am wrong.

I've seen rules debates go a couple ways. You have the classic "Rules Lawyer", who tries to badger the GM until the GM either relents, or the Rules Lawyer gives up. You have more open, Democratic processes, where the players and GM put their heads together about the best way to handle something, and you have DM Fiat, where the DM makes a unilateral decision and the Players can either accept it, or leave the table.

This last one is most common, especially for minor issues, since it takes the least amount of time.

We're discussing the second case, where the issue is handled by the group as a whole after the discussion, which can work very well. However, that discussion always happens in the context of the GM having final say over the ruling. This adds some context to the discussion. The Players have no reason to propose a ruling that they know the GM would dislike, nor do they have incentive to keep arguing once their interpretation has been rejected.
In addition, the context of "Everybody helps the GM make a decision" helps temporarily slip players out of the Player mindset. They're not Deciding what the rules should be, their helping their Friend decide. That helps frame the context as "What does the GM want" rather than "What do I want".

If you specifically declare that rules adjudications are to be made by the group as a whole, that context goes away. The effect this is going to have will change from table to table, but from what I see, a group that approaches these issues from the question of What makes things more fun will say the same stuff whether they're deciding, or helping the GM decide. A group (or player) that sees rules questions as an opportunity for Advantage will be encouraged to attempt charm or bullying to get their way.


You also take away the GM's ability to adjudicate small, or unique issues that don't really deserve a lengthy debate. Even if the solution is uncontroversial, the process of voting or debating can slow down gameplay.

[Satinavian]

You also take away the GM's ability to adjudicate small, or unique issues that don't really deserve a lengthy debate. Even if the solution is uncontroversial, the process of voting or debating can slow down gameplay.That is why i stressed the difference between (house-)rules and rulings. I am very much in favor of deciding (house-)rules democratically and that is what all of my current groups do. Actually the longer running ones tend to have houserules far older than a single campaign used by several GMs who were players when the rules were made. And once ccepted by the group as a whole they will continue to new campaigns and new GMs until the group revises them (or changes the system for a time).

But for rulings that has indeed proved to be too time consuming. That is why those are usually done by the GM alone. Who could obviously ask a player to do it instead. And every player could object to a ruling and start a rule discussion about it, but rulings are about things not worth doing so and thus it nearly never happens. It can only happen when people not only have different ideas about what ruling would be best but also have very different ideas about the importance of the issue.
But even there the word of the GM is not absolute. The players do have a veto and are allowed to start a democratic process. While the GM still does nearly all the rulings, it is only by the players not vetoing them that those actually become reality of the shared imagination. There does not need to be a formal vote process for every minor detail to make it suject to the democratic group will.

[Pex]

No, its clear that they care just as equally about roleplaying.

I just question the mechanical necessity of the optimization clutter they use to achieve the same basic state of a consistent PC victory that characterizes any long-running campaign. If all the complex optimization clutter does the same basic purpose as simply agreeing that its about the story. to cooperate with one another, and that the PCs will win in the end, whats really the point of the clutter?

That's their fun, the mechanics of the game. What you call clutter they call "hey cool, my character can do that".

[Cosi]

I don't think "Purity of the Rules" is important. I think having a consistent, and known, ruleset is important. But a ruleset can be consistent, known when relevant, and ripped to shreds, riddled with Houserules and ad-hoc ruling.

There is no observational difference between a new rule that was just made up and one that was just revealed. Both have the effect of reducing the ability of characters to interact predictably with the world, and make it more difficult for role-playing to occur. Yes, it will sometimes be necessary, but that doesn't make it desirable.


The ground can be unknown, provided it is stable, and provided you can see ahead before you take each step.

What if I want to plan more than one step in advance?


As far as determining the TYPE of game being played, I'd say the GM has a bit more leverage, as they should, since they have to put a lot more work into the game than the players do. But, as always, their only real move is to either accept, or walk away and ask the players to find somebody else to GM. Just as the Player's only real move is to walk away and choose not to play.

I agree that this is a notionally acceptable paradigm, but doesn't it also imply that all optimization is inherently legitimate? After all, my Wizard/Incantatrix who dumpster dives every splat for new buffs surely took more word than your core-only single-classed Fighter. If it is the case that the DM deserves more say for putting in more effort, don't I deserve more say for doing the same?


D&D and many other games turn to the GM and say "look at your players. It's your job to run them through an exciting adventure in an engaging world. Here are great powers at your disposal." Then, to the Players the game says "Look at your GM. They are going to try to destroy you and thwart you at every turn. Here is a single character, an extraordinary inhabitant of a fantastical world. You have control over them, and them alone. Do Whatever you can to help your character succeed."

Can you give an example of things like this that are mechanics, rather than advice? What about D&D would change if I were to run it under another paradigm.


Sometimes you can't table the issue. Sometimes you're in the middle of combat and you need to resolve how kicking a barrel down the stairs at your enemies will be handled.

It seems like most of your examples for why we need DM snap rulings resolve to "have a better stunt system". Should we just write that and then use the better paradigm?


I don't trust the players to maximize the fun of the group, because that isn't their job. Their job is to inhabit their characters and triumph against seemingly impossible odds. That's what the game assumes they'll try to do, and it's not fair to ask them to turn that off at the drop of a hat.

The goal of players is to tell a compelling story within the framework of the game. It seems to me that you are assigning players a role that is incompatible with them contributing to the fun of the group, and then saying we can never have players contribute to the fun of the group.


But on a more serious note, those that have to have their characters "Optimized", are roll playing, more than they are role playing.

Stormwind fallacy. If anything, optimization is often good role-playing. Your character has goals and resources, and he is trying to optimize the second to achieve the first. Why wouldn't he make choices that make him more powerful?


I just question the mechanical necessity of the optimization clutter they use to achieve the same basic state of a consistent PC victory that characterizes any long-running campaign. If all the complex optimization clutter does the same basic purpose as simply agreeing that its about the story. to cooperate with one another, and that the PCs will win in the end, whats really the point of the clutter?

People enjoy solving complex problems. People enjoy having defined starting points. People enjoy having a shared social contract about expectations. All those things imply that rules are good.

Also, I don't necessarily optimize to win, I optimize because that is required to get the system to do the things I want to do. If it did those things more natively, I would optimize less.


I'm not saying that GM's and Players are not two different types of people. I'm saying that they adopt different mindsets at the table. A Player might argue for a ruling that they would never accept as a GM.

Why? That just seems like you're encouraging players to be intellectually dishonest with you. That seems like a bad thing to do with people who you are trying to have fun with.


DM Fiat, where the DM makes a unilateral decision and the Players can either accept it, or leave the table.

That's still negotiation, it just sets up one person as tyrant for no reason. Player's can still say "X ruling would be good" or even threaten to quit if the DM makes a bad ruling, you are just weakening checks against bad rulings.


You also take away the GM's ability to adjudicate small, or unique issues that don't really deserve a lengthy debate. Even if the solution is uncontroversial, the process of voting or debating can slow down gameplay.

Not really. The DM proposes a ruling. If everyone likes it, you proceed. It adds less than 30 seconds for good rulings, in exchange for a powerful check against bad rulings.

[Darth Ultron]

Here we go again, back to optimizers don't care about roleplaying garbage. BadWrongFun!

It is amazing how the light of truth does break through the clouds.

I know so many players that are like ''unless my character can do 100 damage or has a +25 in something'' or some other such mechanical thing they ''can't role play''.

[Lord Raziere]

People enjoy solving complex problems. People enjoy having defined starting points. People enjoy having a shared social contract about expectations. All those things imply that rules are good.

Also, I don't necessarily optimize to win, I optimize because that is required to get the system to do the things I want to do. If it did those things more natively, I would optimize less.


Solving complex problems, defined starting points and shared social contract are not unique to optimization. narrative games are often about making sure the latter two are worked out fully, and often include the first in character at some point.

Exactly, optimization is still horrible because its needed to fix a system that shouldn't have to be. If the system were better, it wouldn't be needed.

[Pex]

It is amazing how the light of truth does break through the clouds.

I know so many players that are like ''unless my character can do 100 damage or has a +25 in something'' or some other such mechanical thing they ''can't role play''.

Such players existing does not mean all or even most who optimize are incapable of roleplaying. There exists the other extreme - the drama queens who are all about the roleplay for whatever angst their character goes through but can't fight their way out of a paper bag.

[Amphetryon]

Solving complex problems, defined starting points and shared social contract are not unique to optimization. narrative games are often about making sure the latter two are worked out fully, and often include the first in character at some point.

Exactly, optimization is still horrible because its needed to fix a system that shouldn't have to be. If the system were better, it wouldn't be needed.

I'm just going to have to disagree that designing a Character who is good at her primary schtick (AKA "optimizing") is "horrible."

[Lord Raziere]

I'm just going to have to disagree that designing a Character who is good at her primary schtick (AKA "optimizing") is "horrible."

well then I'm just going have to disagree that you can't take it too far, or that the primary schtick is allowed to be "do everything".

[georgie_leech]

I think you guys might be talking past each other. It can both be possible for abcharacter to be optimised in a healthy way, and for some to take it too far to the detriment of either things. The existence of either doesn't negate the existence of the other, no?

[Satinavian]

I think you guys might be talking past each other. It can both be possible for abcharacter to be optimised in a healthy way, and for some to take it too far to the detriment of either things. The existence of either doesn't negate the existence of the other, no?
Sure.

Unfortunately that strand of conversation has long moved away from "trying to understand each other" to "trying to score cheap points". The participants do like different games, which is only a matter of taste and try to claim true D&D as a system for their own style directing the other side to other games. It is about getting the community to their side so new groups and players fit better and those that don't fit are easier to bully away.

[PersonMan]

But on a more serious note, those that have to have their characters "Optimized", are roll playing, more than they are role playing.

Eh, there are so many conditions and factors to keep in mind that a wide-range statement like this is all but impossible to make without being wrong.

Mismatch between mechanics and in-world behavior is a major one. If I play a game where I need to roll 80 or higher on a d100 to jump over something, or have the Jump Master ability, then it doesn't work that well to have a character who, despite being a professional jumper, can only jump said thing 20% of the time (assuming this isn't some unusual thing, or in unusual circumstances, etc.).

And that's ignoring all of the vagueness involved here, too.

[Darth Ultron]

Such players existing does not mean all or even most who optimize are incapable of roleplaying. There exists the other extreme - the drama queens who are all about the roleplay for whatever angst their character goes through but can't fight their way out of a paper bag.

True, like maybe 1% are not like that, so it's not ''all of them''. Just most of them, but not all.

[Scripten]

True, like maybe 1% are not like that, so it's not ''all of them''. Just most of them, but not all.

This has not been my experience, nor that of anyone I play with. This is a totally unsubstantiated point.

[digiman619]

True, like maybe 1% are not like that, so it's not ''all of them''. Just most of them, but not all.
And 97% of GMs are pompous @$$holes who only GM so they can have a modicum of power over other people, so they abuse that power in countless ways to prove their dominance over their players.

See, I can make insulting generalizations and slap an arbitrary percentage on it, too.

[Cosi]

Solving complex problems, defined starting points and shared social contract are not unique to optimization. narrative games are often about making sure the latter two are worked out fully, and often include the first in character at some point.

I think many people, myself included, would feel that the mechanical definition provided by rules is better for the first two goals than free-form roleplaying. And yes, you don't have to optimize to get those things, but you were asking why people optimize instead of just free-forming.


Exactly, optimization is still horrible because its needed to fix a system that shouldn't have to be. If the system were better, it wouldn't be needed.

When it comes down to it, I don't have a terribly strong defense of optimization in-and-of-itself. The game would probably be better if the things I optimize to do could be done without optimization. But, it is my observation that people who spew vitriol against optimization inevitably seem to spew a similar virtue against the idea of PCs influencing the story without the DM's permission, or in directions he does not support. And that is horrible. In the end, I think it's better that the optimizers win, so that the whole mindset that it is "the DM's game" rather than "the group's game" can be done with, then we later step the system back towards less optimization being necessary for doing things like conquering hell.

[Lord Raziere]

I think many people, myself included, would feel that the mechanical definition provided by rules is better for the first two goals than free-form roleplaying. And yes, you don't have to optimize to get those things, but you were asking why people optimize instead of just free-forming.



When it comes down to it, I don't have a terribly strong defense of optimization in-and-of-itself. The game would probably be better if the things I optimize to do could be done without optimization. But, it is my observation that people who spew vitriol against optimization inevitably seem to spew a similar virtue against the idea of PCs influencing the story without the DM's permission, or in directions he does not support. And that is horrible. In the end, I think it's better that the optimizers win, so that the whole mindset that it is "the DM's game" rather than "the group's game" can be done with, then we later step the system back towards less optimization being necessary for doing things like conquering hell.

from what I've seen, mechanical definition only makes needless differences that lead to optimizers breaking social contract, the best are often simple and flexible, as "no godmodding" is a better social contract than "here is an endless number of options that you can use to break the game, if you don't study them all and aren't competent in applying the right ones and discard other options, screw you, you lose." so no I don't see what your saying as true.

So you argue one is better because some perceived fear of Bad DMs? the most horrible thing about the optimizer is that their entire mindset is a competitive, paranoid one, that they need to "derail" the campaign, that them and only them are the people standing against a bad DM and that anyone who doesn't provide them their sandbox isn't playing a good game. your best defense against a bad DM, a bad game is not your stupid rules, those can be thrown out or changed like anything else, the only good defense against that is your feet and they direction they are walking. no gaming is better than bad gaming, while any good DM would be cooperative and flexible enough to make sure that agency isn't a problem. So why would you stay at a Bad GM, and why would you be a uncooperative jerk for a good one? Its pointless either way.

and really, if an optimizer screws over a campaign who works hard to try and make it fun, is it really any better than a bad GM? No. both are bad. both think they deserve their power and that they can use it however they like and that only their way is fun, and that anyone who doesn't like it can go screw themselves. If an optimizer tried to respond to a bad gm by going all out in their optimization fu, I'd just leave because they're both being stupid. optimization, bad GMing, they just different sets of rails.

[Cosi]

from what I've seen, mechanical definition only makes needless differences that lead to optimizers breaking social contract, the best are often simple and flexible, as "no godmodding" is a better social contract than "here is an endless number of options that you can use to break the game, if you don't study them all and aren't competent in applying the right ones and discard other options, screw you, you lose." so no I don't see what your saying as true.

"No Godmoding" is clearly insufficient, for the simply reason that any (well, almost any) system that has "Godmode" options also has a diversity of possible balance points.

Is playing a Wizard/Incantatrix with a reasonably strong list of buffs and a couple minions from planar bounding "Godmode"? I would say it probably is if the rest of the party is a Sword and Board Fighter, a melee Rogue with one weapon, and a Healer. But at the same time, it probably isn't if the rest of the group is a DMM Persist Cleric/Dwoemerkeeper, a Beguiler/Rainbow Servant using substitute domain to get access to every spell any member of her pantheon grants in a domain, and a Druid/Planar Shepherd who picked the plane with all the outsiders with cool SLAs.

If half the group expects the first game, and half the group expects the second, just saying "No Godmoding" is going to result in two players who feel overshadowed by the rest of the party and two players who feel like they're dragging useless lumps around. Clearly, more precision is required.


So you argue one is better because some perceived fear of Bad DMs?

I argue one is better because "optimization is good" is just one part of a complex of beliefs, which is way better than the one that includes "optimization bad". And, frankly, it's a lot more true than "optimization bad". Optimization is neutral. It's a tool for getting the game system to do certain kinds of things. The idea that it's "bad" is juvenile.


the most horrible thing about the optimizer is that their entire mindset is a competitive, paranoid one, that they need to "derail" the campaign, that them and only them are the people standing against a bad DM and that anyone who doesn't provide them their sandbox isn't playing a good game.

I feel like I have to say this every thread, but I don't care how you play. You want to follow your DM's script? Fine, do that. But don't act like it's the right way to play and I'm being disruptive when I expect to get to contribute to the process of cooperative story-telling.

[Lord Raziere]

"No Godmoding" is clearly insufficient, for the simply reason that any (well, almost any) system that has "Godmode" options also has a diversity of possible balance points.

Is playing a Wizard/Incantatrix with a reasonably strong list of buffs and a couple minions from planar bounding "Godmode"? I would say it probably is if the rest of the party is a Sword and Board Fighter, a melee Rogue with one weapon, and a Healer. But at the same time, it probably isn't if the rest of the group is a DMM Persist Cleric/Dwoemerkeeper, a Beguiler/Rainbow Servant using substitute domain to get access to every spell any member of her pantheon grants in a domain, and a Druid/Planar Shepherd who picked the plane with all the outsiders with cool SLAs.

If half the group expects the first game, and half the group expects the second, just saying "No Godmoding" is going to result in two players who feel overshadowed by the rest of the party and two players who feel like they're dragging useless lumps around. Clearly, more precision is required.

That is not the fault of "no godmodding" that is the fault of the "endless options and screw you if you choose the wrong ones" social contract.



I argue one is better because "optimization is good" is just one part of a complex of beliefs, which is way better than the one that includes "optimization bad". And, frankly, it's a lot more true than "optimization bad". Optimization is neutral. It's a tool for getting the game system to do certain kinds of things. The idea that it's "bad" is juvenile.

To know that power corrupts, that optimization is power, and that people say power is neutral all the time, is far from juvenile.

Just. A Different. Set. Of. Rails.



I feel like I have to say this every thread, but I don't care how you play. You want to follow your DM's script? Fine, do that. But don't act like it's the right way to play and I'm being disruptive when I expect to get to contribute to the process of cooperative story-telling.

manipulating numbers so that your better than everyone else is not cooperative nor storytelling. while assuming everyone who doesn't optimize is just following some DM script like some sheep, again I don't need your optimization to defend myself against bad DMs, nor am I saying that following the script is my playstyle.

[Cosi]

That is not the fault of "no godmodding" that is the fault of the "endless options and screw you if you choose the wrong ones" social contract.

But no one is trying to godmode! How can it be my fault for breaking the social contract if I never set out to do that? Or do you maintain that the Incantatrix is inherently godmode, even in parties where he is balanced? Wouldn't that also make the Fighter godmode for stomping the party of three Commoners? Or does "godmode" just mean "better than my pet class"?


To know that power corrupts, that optimization is power, and that people say power is neutral all the time, is far from juvenile.

Are you really going with "power corrupts" as your argument against character optimization? Because that seems ... a little loose.


manipulating numbers so that your better than everyone else is not cooperative nor storytelling. while assuming everyone who doesn't optimize is just following some DM script like some sheep, again I don't need your optimization to defend myself against bad DMs, nor am I saying that following the script is my playstyle.

People aren't manipulating numbers so that they are better than everyone else. They are manipulating numbers so that those numbers correspond to a character they want to play.

And my point is not that all non-optimizers follow the rails. It's that the same people who rail against optimization also push for very strong rails (e.g. Darth Ultron).

[Lord Raziere]

But no one is trying to godmode! How can it be my fault for breaking the social contract if I never set out to do that? Or do you maintain that the Incantatrix is inherently godmode, even in parties where he is balanced? Wouldn't that also make the Fighter godmode for stomping the party of three Commoners? Or does "godmode" just mean "better than my pet class"?



Are you really going with "power corrupts" as your argument against character optimization? Because that seems ... a little loose.



People aren't manipulating numbers so that they are better than everyone else. They are manipulating numbers so that those numbers correspond to a character they want to play.

And my point is not that all non-optimizers follow the rails. It's that the same people who rail against optimization also push for very strong rails (e.g. Darth Ultron).

Well of course no one is trying to godmode, those examples are all fault of your social contract not mine. your social contract does not have godmodding as a thing that exists.

If a wizard uses so many win buttons that they determine the entire direction of the campaign without me being able to do anything about it, what is the difference between that and a Bad GM? none. what else do I call that, other than being corrupted by power, becoming the very thing they fought against, becoming just as railroading? I see no other term that fits.

Which is unneeded, because a good game shouldn't make people do that just to make sure every character concept is represented.

I am not Darth Ultron.

[Cosi]

Well of course no one is trying to godmode, those examples are all fault of your social contract not mine. your social contract does not have godmodding as a thing that exists.

So is your social contract not a thing that can be applied to the game as it exists? If we can actually identify and prevent "godmode", why should we allow it into the game just to social contract it out? Why not just not write godmode content?


If a wizard uses so many win buttons that they determine the entire direction of the campaign without me being able to do anything about it, what is the difference between that and a Bad GM? none.

Ah, but there is a difference. You can play a Wizard. Or a Druid, or a Beguiler, or an Artificer, or a Dread Necromancer, or a Cleric, or any number of classes with win-buttons of their own. Maybe you don't want to play those things, and thats fine. Not every concept will work for every player. But if you and the Wizard's player have fundamentally incompatible concepts, you can't entirely blame the Wizard for his concept not working with yours -- you are just as much at fault for your concept not working with his.

[Lord Raziere]

So is your social contract not a thing that can be applied to the game as it exists? If we can actually identify and prevent "godmode", why should we allow it into the game just to social contract it out? Why not just not write godmode content?



Ah, but there is a difference. You can play a Wizard. Or a Druid, or a Beguiler, or an Artificer, or a Dread Necromancer, or a Cleric, or any number of classes with win-buttons of their own. Maybe you don't want to play those things, and thats fine. Not every concept will work for every player. But if you and the Wizard's player have fundamentally incompatible concepts, you can't entirely blame the Wizard for his concept not working with yours -- you are just as much at fault for your concept not working with his.

Your social contract already has a thing for preventing godmodding in its basic design: dice. any game with dice already does that, its your own fault that you ignore it for the sake of I Win buttons that bypass the balancing mechanism of chance. "no godmodding" is a rule that works when there is no dice, and its more consistently applied, because then the mechanism for how actions are resolved is the players and how they work things out to be reasonable.

I am less powerful than those other classes. the fault lies in those more powerful, not I. Just a different set of rails, and I will not stoop to the level of trying to player-railroad myself. Don't act the victim: "oh no, one of the players is weaker than me and allowing me to do whatever I want, I'm so hurt by this."

[Cosi]

Your social contract already has a thing for preventing godmodding in its basic design: dice. any game with dice already does that, its your own fault that you ignore it for the sake of I Win buttons that bypass the balancing mechanism of chance.

But you don't have to roll dice to breathe, or to successfully eat. Are we in "godmode" by default for not having to worry about asthma? It would seem clear to me that we are not, and therefore clear that not everything must be a challenge. Therefore, should it be possible to eventually surpass some things that were previously challenges? It seems to me that the idea of progression is rather undermined by an insistence that all things that threatened you a 1st level still do so at 20th level.


I am less powerful than those other classes. the fault lies in those more powerful, not I.

Why? No one forced you to roll a Fighter. There is not a one Wizard limit for your group. You have made the choice to play a less powerful character because you find it more fun. The Wizard's player has chosen to play a more powerful character because he finds that more fun. Why is his approach to the game less legitimate than your own? Why should you force him to not have fun, instead of him forcing you to not have fun?

[Pex]

Suppose I play a 1st level human Pathfinder Paladin using 25 Point Buy.

ST 16 DX 10 CO 14 IN 10 WI 10 CH 16, Human +2 into strength for a total of 18 ST.
My feats are Power Attack (-2 to hit, +2 damage, add 50% damage if using a two-handed weapon) and Furious Focus (Ignore Power Attack penalty on the first and only the first attack you make in a round.)

I wield a greatsword. At 1st level I am thus at +5 to hit doing 2d6 + 9 damage.

That's optimizing.

How does that in any way mean I can't or won't roleplay?

How is that BadWrongFun because I didn't choose to make my build as

ST 14 DX 14 CO 10 IN 14 WI 14 CH 14 Human +2 into CH for a total of 16 CH.
My feats are Persuasive (+2 to Diplomacy and Intimidate) and Dodge (+1 dodge bonus to AC)

I wield a long sword and shield. At 1st level I am thus +3 to hit doing 1d8 + 2 damage.

[Lord Raziere]

But you don't have to roll dice to breathe, or to successfully eat. Are we in "godmode" by default for not having to worry about asthma? It would seem clear to me that we are not, and therefore clear that not everything must be a challenge. Therefore, should it be possible to eventually surpass some things that were previously challenges? It seems to me that the idea of progression is rather undermined by an insistence that all things that threatened you a 1st level still do so at 20th level.



Why? No one forced you to roll a Fighter. There is not a one Wizard limit for your group. You have made the choice to play a less powerful character because you find it more fun. The Wizard's player has chosen to play a more powerful character because he finds that more fun. Why is his approach to the game less legitimate than your own? Why should you force him to not have fun, instead of him forcing you to not have fun?

Those are not relevant. If its not something that needs effort, why are you even focusing on it?

I don't know, no one forced you to make the Fighter or any other option inherently weaker than the Wizard, why are there inherently weaker options at all? Why can't I just play whatever I want without worrying about whether I am playing a weaker option?

[Cosi]

Those are not relevant. If its not something that needs effort, why are you even focusing on it?

But your complaint is that optimization reduces things that need effort to things that do not! Where do we draw the line?


I don't know, no one forced you to make the Fighter or any other option inherently weaker than the Wizard, why are there inherently weaker options at all? Why can't I just play whatever I want without worrying about whether I am playing a weaker option?

Why are you blaming the player for a problem the designer created?

[Lord Raziere]

But your complaint is that optimization reduces things that need effort to things that do not! Where do we draw the line?



Why are you blaming the player for a problem the designer created?

1. No, my complaint is that optimization erases the choices just as much bad GMs do.

2. Why are you taking the option when you know and acknowledge that the problem exists?

[Cosi]

1. No, my complaint is that optimization erases the choices just as much bad GMs do.

But you have provided no evidence of this, only that power gaps do so.


2. Why are you taking the option when you know and acknowledge that the problem exists?

Why are you taking a weaker option when you know and acknowledge that the problem exists?

[Lord Raziere]

But you have provided no evidence of this, only that power gaps do so.



Why are you taking a weaker option when you know and acknowledge that the problem exists?

Then why do you keep making them?

To not be apart of the problem.

[Cosi]

Then why do you keep making them?

Why do you keep making them?


To not be apart of the problem.

The problem is power gaps. Less powerful options contribute to that problem.

[Lord Raziere]

Why do you keep making them?



The problem is power gaps. Less powerful options contribute to that problem.

Yeah, power gaps, why do you keep making them?

More powerful options contribute even more to it, what is more problematic, a warrior who can't defeat a dragon or a warrior who defeats a dragon by blowing up the planet?

[flond]

Yeah, power gaps, why do you keep making them?

More powerful options contribute even more to it, what is more problematic, a warrior who can't defeat a dragon or a warrior who defeats a dragon by blowing up the planet?

Depends on the setting. The first would be pretty terrible in say Nobilis. (Which is another way to say that the focus of the game will always matter)

[Cosi]

It's a question of priorities. It's usually easier to adjust challenges up rather than down, so in general more powerful options are less of a problem.

I'm not going to respond explicitly to Raziere's strawman though.

[Lord Raziere]

It's a question of priorities. It's usually easier to adjust challenges up rather than down, so in general more powerful options are less of a problem.


And thus ruin everything by making it all about stupid over-prep because you decided to optimize what schtick you chose, so you chose the "do everything" schtick, which is like choosing "being rich" as your job.

[Cosi]

And thus ruin everything by making it all about stupid over-prep because you decided to optimize what schtick you chose, so you chose the "do everything" schtick, which is like choosing "being rich" as your job.

Why did you choose "do nothing" as your schtick?

[Lord Raziere]

Why did you choose "do nothing" as your schtick?

Why do you think that anything that isn't optimized is the "do nothing" schtick?

[Max_Killjoy]

I think you two are using different definitions of "optimize".

[Cosi]

Why do you think that anything that isn't optimized is the "do nothing" schtick?

Why do you think anything that is optimized is the "do everything" schtick?

[Lord Raziere]

Why do you think anything that is optimized is the "do everything" schtick?

Maybe I wouldn't if you had a problem with it, or didn't have entire community dedicated to it and talking about how it wins. What am I supposed to, just trust you with that power? With no mechanisms in place to rectify it to prevent things going wrong before they even happen? Especially when you claim to oppose the very person that I trust to make sure this kind of thing doesn't get out of hand, the DM? I cannot tell when your going to break the game, I can't be certain that you'll always be of sound judgement, I have seen too many players who seem reasonable at first, but then it turns out they aren't and they pull a dragon army out of nowhere to kill important npcs because of petty reasons, or relentlessly respond to every attack from my characters with "no that doesn't work" in various godlike ways while terraforming the world until its a boring mess of warlord territories with no fun or flavor fighting each other using rules-lawyer arguments that are anything but fun and are just constant endless back forth sessions of "no this detail means I defeat that little detail". Every time I've seen optimization, it has never been "specialized" its always been trying to be godlike in as wide as variety of things as possible, whether in game or out of game. Often, I'm the specialized one for NOT optimizing.

[BRC]

And thus ruin everything by making it all about stupid over-prep because you decided to optimize what schtick you chose, so you chose the "do everything" schtick, which is like choosing "being rich" as your job.


Why did you choose "do nothing" as your schtick?


Why do you think that anything that isn't optimized is the "do nothing" schtick?


Why do you think anything that is optimized is the "do everything" schtick?


Because when Raziere said "Do Everything", you jumped to "Do Nothing" as the only alternative, rather than, say, "Do three things"?


As much fun as this is, let's try to refocus here.

The choices in this case are not "Do nothing" and "Do everything". "Do everything" represents the Optimized State, "Do Nothing" represents the counteroptimized state.

"Do Three Things" is neither optimized, nor counteroptimized, but it should be a valid choice.

The problem is Power Gaps. What power level those gaps exist at is arbitrary.

Ideally, somebody should be able to sit down, build a character they want to play, and have that character be valid. That's the primary goal of the system. Because while a lot of different character concepts can hover around Mid-level optimization, the higher you go in optimization, the fewer concepts match the mechanics. By saying "Just don't pick the bad options", you're saying "Don't play characters that don't match the optimal mechanics".

Like, Consider this

Tier 1: Wizard
Tier 2: Cleric, Druid
Tier 3: Bard, Paladin, Ranger
Tier 4: Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, Warlock.
Tier 5: Commoner with a bucket on his head.

The Optimal choice is to play a Wizard. The Counteroptimal choice is a commoner with a bucket on his head, but people don't usually go for counteroptimization.

If you say "Don't make unoptimal choices", then everybody is playing a wizard. In fact, everybody is playing the same wizard, because there are optimal choices to make within the Wizard class. That's great if you want to play a wizard, but it sucks if you want to play literally anything else.

If you must pick a single tier, and ban all classes outside that tier, the best one to pick would be tier 4, as that tier contains the most options, and so has the highest chance of including whatever somebody wants to play (Assuming a roughly equal distribution of desire to play any given class).

[Lord Raziere]

The Optimal choice is to play a Wizard. The Counteroptimal choice is a commoner with a bucket on his head, but people don't usually go for counteroptimization.

If you say "Don't make unoptimal choices", then everybody is playing a wizard. In fact, everybody is playing the same wizard, because there are optimal choices to make within the Wizard class. That's great if you want to play a wizard, but it sucks if you want to play literally anything else.


EXACTLY! Thats what I try to keep saying, I just can never find the words. optimization is fractal after all, and the only way to make only optimal choices is to play all the same class, and not even different kinds of the same class. if I only make optimized choices, then there is only one character choice available to me. its stupid.

[Drakevarg]

Like, Consider this

Tier 1: Wizard
Tier 2: Cleric, Druid
Tier 3: Bard, Paladin, Ranger
Tier 4: Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, Warlock.
Tier 5: Commoner with a bucket on his head.

The Optimal choice is to play a Wizard. The Counteroptimal choice is a commoner with a bucket on his head, but people don't usually go for counteroptimization.

If you say "Don't make unoptimal choices", then everybody is playing a wizard. In fact, everybody is playing the same wizard, because there are optimal choices to make within the Wizard class. That's great if you want to play a wizard, but it sucks if you want to play literally anything else.

If you must pick a single tier, and ban all classes outside that tier, the best one to pick would be tier 4, as that tier contains the most options, and so has the highest chance of including whatever somebody wants to play (Assuming a roughly equal distribution of desire to play any given class).

I find it an interesting coincidence that the T4 list is almost exactly my usual list of allowed classes in my games. Guess I know my preferred optimization level.

[BayardSPSR]

Like, Consider this

Tier 1: Wizard
Tier 2: Cleric, Druid
Tier 3: Bard, Paladin, Ranger
Tier 4: Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, Warlock.
Tier 5: Commoner with a bucket on his head.

The Optimal choice is to play a Wizard. The Counteroptimal choice is a commoner with a bucket on his head, but people don't usually go for counteroptimization.

If you say "Don't make unoptimal choices", then everybody is playing a wizard. In fact, everybody is playing the same wizard, because there are optimal choices to make within the Wizard class. That's great if you want to play a wizard, but it sucks if you want to play literally anything else.

If you must pick a single tier, and ban all classes outside that tier, the best one to pick would be tier 4, as that tier contains the most options, and so has the highest chance of including whatever somebody wants to play (Assuming a roughly equal distribution of desire to play any given class).

Excellent example.

[Satinavian]

As much fun as this is, let's try to refocus here.

The choices in this case are not "Do nothing" and "Do everything". "Do everything" represents the Optimized State, "Do Nothing" represents the counteroptimized state.

"Do Three Things" is neither optimized, nor counteroptimized, but it should be a valid choice.

The problem is Power Gaps. What power level those gaps exist at is arbitrary.
The problem is that we focuse on the "I win buttons". Lord Raziere don't argue so much against the number of powers, she argues against the kind of powers. Which means that the "Do Three Things" concept is not allowed if those three things are actually powerfull I win buttons.

And that is why "Do nothing" is a proper comeback to "Do everything here". It stands for "all the cool stuff I like in my games is not allowed, the powers i can choose from are uninteresting" and gets the usual exxageration treatment


One bad thing with D&D is the idea of a dedicated spellcaster who is general and could learn nearly every spell in combination with the habit of using every supernatural ability in fiction or stories that seem interesting and bring it into the game as a spell. This obviously results in one class able to learn all the cool stuff.



Ideally, somebody should be able to sit down, build a character they want to play, and have that character be valid. That's the primary goal of the system. Because while a lot of different character concepts can hover around Mid-level optimization, the higher you go in optimization, the fewer concepts match the mechanics. By saying "Just don't pick the bad options", you're saying "Don't play characters that don't match the optimal mechanics".


If you must pick a single tier, and ban all classes outside that tier, the best one to pick would be tier 4, as that tier contains the most options, and so has the highest chance of including whatever somebody wants to play (Assuming a roughly equal distribution of desire to play any given class).Yes, but your Tier 4 includes only martials and a guy who is either blaster or another matial. Your Tier 2 includes healers, necromancers, divine martial hybrids, Shapeshifters, Petmasters, Elementarists and Buffbots. It is probably easier to make far more noticable differently themed characters with your 2 classes in Tier 2 than with your 5 classes in Tier 4. The reason is that Cleric and Druid are that more powerful and versatile, sure. But the result is that many more players would find their concept realizable in a Tier 2 class and not in any Tier 4 class. That is before optimization. A lot of very flaverful stuff you can try with Druid or Cleric is not really optimized and most of the concepts need only part of the class abilities/spells anyway. But those classes remain still the only straightforward way to actually do it.

[Cosi]

Because when Raziere said "Do Everything", you jumped to "Do Nothing" as the only alternative, rather than, say, "Do three things"?

Again, why did Raziere jump to "Do Everything" instead of "Do Thirty Things". The problem is imbalance, which means the problem is on both ends.


"Do Three Things" is neither optimized, nor counteroptimized, but it should be a valid choice.

Why? Why should "Do Three Things" be protected? Why not "Do Thirty Things" or "Do One Thing" or "Do 592 Things"? What's special about three?


Ideally, somebody should be able to sit down, build a character they want to play, and have that character be valid. That's the primary goal of the system. Because while a lot of different character concepts can hover around Mid-level optimization, the higher you go in optimization, the fewer concepts match the mechanics. By saying "Just don't pick the bad options", you're saying "Don't play characters that don't match the optimal mechanics".

No, I'm saying that I want to play some character that matches the optimal mechanics, and you don't, and we can't both be happy. Why is it my fault that your character concept isn't compatible with mine?


If you say "Don't make unoptimal choices", then everybody is playing a wizard. In fact, everybody is playing the same wizard, because there are optimal choices to make within the Wizard class. That's great if you want to play a wizard, but it sucks if you want to play literally anything else.

Don't make choices that are outside the desired power level for the group. That can be Wizard. It can be Fighter. It can be something else. But if you insist that the group support your concept, regardless of what the rest of the group wants, you are being disruptive. Even if you aren't optimized. Even if you are playing the fairest possible character. Even if everyone else is the most rules lawyer-ing rules lawyer ever to rules lawyer. Because it's a social game with social constraints.


If you must pick a single tier, and ban all classes outside that tier, the best one to pick would be tier 4, as that tier contains the most options, and so has the highest chance of including whatever somebody wants to play (Assuming a roughly equal distribution of desire to play any given class).

It contains the most classes. That's not the same as the most options.

[BRC]

That's what I get for using an example people have reference to. I'm not talking about D&D (any edition) specifically, it was just a handy list of variables. You could slice Cleric into different types of cleric, you could also slice the martial classes into archers/great weapon fighters/ Duelists, Shield Users, Dual Wielders, what have you until we've listed every single possible character build in the game.

Here, does this work better?

Tier 1: Alice
Tier 2: Bob, Carla
Tier 3: Dan, Emily, Frank
Tier 4: Grace, Henry, Izzy, Joe.

All else being equal, Tier 4 is the tier to balance around, because that's the tier with the most options that is most likely to include the name somebody wants to pick.

If everybody wants to play Tier 2 characters, balance around tier 2. If you're speaking in the abstract, but Tier 3 has the most options, balance around Tier 3.

Heck, if 90% of character options are tier 1, then congratulations, you're game is well balanced.

[Kallimakus]

I am late to this discussion, as is my habit it seems, but I've followed the discussion for a while.

I personally dislike win buttons for reasons already iterated previously in the thread. Because they run the risk of trivializing either other characters (knock/invisibility vs rogue), or certain challenges (fly vs any monster that lacks means of attacking flying creatures), or campaign premises (teleport in a travel-centric game). There are ways around these, of course. Mostly they revolve around keeping the level of the game low when you want to use those types of adventures and challenges.

The other one touched upon is the low cost of these win buttons in comparison to the thing they replace. Knock, comprehend languages and things of that ilk have opportunity cost at low levels, but once you can afford a backup scroll or wand, you basically invalidate skill allocation or class.

The topic seems to have switched to tiers and what level of power is appropriate for characters, which obviously varies from game to game. Looking at Pathfinder specifically, most challenges seem to land between Tier 3 and 4 when played put of the book (using the tactics suggested and not changing feats and so on). Granted, I have no experience past level 15, and very little post 10, so it could conceivably change. So characters optimized to higher end of Tier 3 or above require extra work from me to really challenge them, especially if the party includes those of lower tier.

Responding to the amount of options available to characters: I find that in order to encourage diversity in class and character makeup perspective, no class or character should be capable of doing everything. Not even potentially (say, an all-cleric party with a debuffer, buffer, summoner, melee and ranged). While it is hardly wrong to create classes with a paradigm like this, it should be applied across the board or not at all. Since my perception of the base game is that it is aimed for the mid-tiers, I'll rather cut off the top. Equally, I wouldn't have a player with Commoner or Warrior as their class. So in this regard, 'do three things' is a fair paradigm to me provided that the things are broad enough. Assuming that everything that is doable is grouped across 9 'things', every character having 3 things they can do seems fair. If there are a hundred things, three obviously isn't enough.

And one final thing to note is that everything is dependent on the GM. I've read it here and elsewhere that abilities like Teleport or Plane Shift are needed to escape the dreaded railroad. But I don't think that's true. If the GM is going to railroad, you're not getting away with a spell. In a worst-case scenario, you end up in a blank space because the GM didn't put anything there. And as Lord Raziere said on this and last page, the rails have not gone anywhere. The only difference is that the players are laying them now. And in my limited experience, they don't take responsibility. (Not the best way to express this, but I'm at loss for a better phrase). To me, players with that attitude are just as bad as the railroading or 'gotcha' GMs.

[Cosi]

Here, does this work better?

Tier 1: Alice
Tier 2: Bob, Carla
Tier 3: Dan, Emily, Frank
Tier 4: Grace, Henry, Izzy, Joe.

Well, no, because you're discarding information. You need to define what you mean by "options". Is it just "the number of base classes you can be"? That seems rather unfair to classes like the Sorcerer that represent a wide variety of potential characters within the same class levels. At risk of going too deep on an analogy, a better analogy is something like:

Tier 1: Names starting with A
Tier 2: Names starting with An or Bi
Tier 3: Names starting with Ano, Bit, or Cra
Tier 4: Names starting with Anot, Bitu, Cral, or Dexr

Obviously Tier 4 has more options, but equally obviously those options are much narrower.


All else being equal, Tier 4 is the tier to balance around, because that's the tier with the most options that is most likely to include the name somebody wants to pick.

But all else is not equal.

Before we should get into anything else, people mostly don't want to play classes, so the standard of "most classes" isn't terribly useful. Most people want to play a swordsman, not a Fighter, and a DMM Cleric or a Swiftblade makes a perfectly defensible swordsman. Those who do want to play classes usually select after the list of options is known, so they aren't really relevant here.

But even if we accept that this is a good standard, this is not the only standard. If we are not writing a new game (and the fact that we are concerned with existing tiers suggests to me that we are not), then we should be concerned about the ability of characters to measure up to opposition, and this is a place where the Tier Four classes clearly fall short. If a 14th Barbarian can't contribute next to a 14th level Cleric, how is he supposed to beat the CR 14 Trumpet Archon that is a 14th level Cleric and also an archon?

Beyond balance concerns, there's also the desire to have abilities like the Cleric's wall of stone, the Wizard's teleport, or the Druid's awaken. Maybe you don't want those abilities in your game. But I certainly want them in mine, and isn't it a better solution to level gate those abilities so you can have what you want at 8th level and I can have what I want at 9th level than to remove them entirely?


Because they run the risk of trivializing either other characters (knock/invisibility vs rogue), or certain challenges (fly vs any monster that lacks means of attacking flying creatures), or campaign premises (teleport in a travel-centric game). There are ways around these, of course. Mostly they revolve around keeping the level of the game low when you want to use those types of adventures and challenges.

You have broadly identified three problems here, which I will number here for ease of reference:

1. Negating other PCs.
2. Negating monsters.
3. Negating campaign premises.

I disagree with your examples of the first kind of problem, and think they undermine your analysis of the problem as a whole. knock genuinely doesn't replace a Rogue at 3rd level. It has advantages (faster, more certain), but also disadvantages (higher opportunity cost, more limited uses). In an item it might, but Rogues do get UMD. At 9th level it might negate the need for a Rogue by virtue of being relatively cheaper, but isn't having the 9th level Rogue still depend on a 1st level ability for non-combat relevance a problem? I would suggest that the better paradigm would be not to remove knock, but to provide the 9th level Rogue with new abilities that fit into a similar paradigm when compared to the abilities of 9th level casters. (Also, I've toyed with the idea of just making knock part of Open Lock, for thematic consistency reasons).

I think the second problem reduces to leveling. If you have accumulated an AC of 35, you are not threated by monsters with an attack bonus of +14 or lower in much the same way that someone who can fly is not threatened by monsters without flight and/or ranged attacks. Should we remove leveling entirely? If not, why is it bad that some challenges are obsoleted not purely by numerical progression, but rather by acquisition of new abilities?

The third problem is a matter of taste. Some stories are negated by teleport. But some stories are enabled by teleport. Isn't it better to support both kinds of stories by using a level divide, rather than excluding the ability and thereby supporting only one?


And one final thing to note is that everything is dependent on the GM. I've read it here and elsewhere that abilities like Teleport or Plane Shift are needed to escape the dreaded railroad. But I don't think that's true. If the GM is going to railroad, you're not getting away with a spell. In a worst-case scenario, you end up in a blank space because the GM didn't put anything there. And as Lord Raziere said on this and last page, the rails have not gone anywhere. The only difference is that the players are laying them now. And in my limited experience, they don't take responsibility. (Not the best way to express this, but I'm at loss for a better phrase). To me, players with that attitude are just as bad as the railroading or 'gotcha' GMs.

It is certainly true that no rules can provide absolute protection against bad DMing. But the ability to explicitly pursue a different strategy than the intended one is good. It allows players to be creative and look for solutions the DM might not have considered, which is an experience that is valuable.

I literally don't understand the notion of "player railroading". Railroading is forcing the game to a pre-defined path. By definition, stepping off that path is not railroading. Am I "railroading" the course of combat when I attack a goblin knowing that I will successfully take an attack action (to be clear, not hit or kill, just make an attack)? What does "railroading" even mean here?

[Drakevarg]

I disagree with your examples of the first kind of problem, and think they undermine your analysis of the problem as a whole. knock genuinely doesn't replace a Rogue at 3rd level. It has advantages (faster, more certain), but also disadvantages (higher opportunity cost, more limited uses). In an item it might, but Rogues do get UMD.

"Wizards don't make rogues redundant because rogues have the power to pretend they're wizards."


The third problem is a matter of taste. Some stories are negated by teleport. But some stories are enabled by teleport. Isn't it better to support both kinds of stories by using a level divide, rather than excluding the ability and thereby supporting only one?

That'd assume that teleporting vs. not teleporting is the only change across levels. What if you want a story where you can punch dragons, but not teleport? You can't have one without the other, short of banning casters or giving them arbitrary level caps that others don't have.