Quote from: Kyle Aaron;504778As others have said, you don't always know what'll cause problems until you see it in play.

Exactly. I do not worry about this kind of stuff. If some build happens to be negative to the game, either (a) we discuss it and make the changes needed to make things work or (b) I note it down and it becomes part of the bad guys tactics, too.

Quote from: RPGPundit;504820and thus the smartest thing a GM can do is not play 3.x

RPGPundit

This is not a stupid proposition

There's been a cultural viewpoint shift where a segment of the gaming population wanted to move away from GM interpretation authority to RAW literalist authority. I think we've all observed such a phenomenon over the past 15 years. I know I have, in both real life and online. It's sort of a thing that has permeated beyond just this hobby as well, so I can't really blame it on something trite like, "GM abuse under crappy AD&D 2e modules." It's been a cultural shift where people tend to demand all options be spelled out for them, instead of general restrictions as interpretive guidelines. I guess our history is just going through some literal v. interpretive cycle in some Hegelian interpretation or whatnot.

I myself don't partake of such literalist/legalist nonsense, for that path leads to madness in my opinion. I feel that critical thinking and social trust compacts are important for maintaining gaming table health -- and well, at simplest basic gamer friendships so as to not be a douche. Which probably explains that I have little truck with rules lawyering and little love for the community standard of play in D&D 3e/PF and 4e.

There are too many rules changes necessary for 3e to function beyond about eighth level for me to bother.  It has less to do with outliers like Pun-Pun and more to do with rules clusterfucks like polymorph.

QuoteThere's been a cultural viewpoint shift where a segment of the gaming population wanted to move away from GM interpretation authority to RAW literalist authority.

This too.

I still wish someone had published an E6 or E8 book, instead of just having guidelines on a forum.

Quote from: Opaopajr;504942There's been a cultural viewpoint shift where a segment of the gaming population wanted to move away from GM interpretation authority to RAW literalist authority. I think we've all observed such a phenomenon over the past 15 years. I know I have, in both real life and online. It's sort of a thing that has permeated beyond just this hobby as well, so I can't really blame it on something trite like, "GM abuse under crappy AD&D 2e modules." It's been a cultural shift where people tend to demand all options be spelled out for them, instead of general restrictions as interpretive guidelines. I guess our history is just going through some literal v. interpretive cycle in some Hegelian interpretation or whatnot.

This wasn't new in 1998 with 3rd ed D&D.  During the 80s some gamers would turn to more comprehensive rule sets like Champions or GURPS - then the pendulum swung the other way in the 1990s with the popularity of the Storyteller system.  This taste isn't for "raw" rules - the people who want rules with no human judgment play computer games.  Rather, some people prefer rules that clearly state what they mean, and don't take a self-proclaimed expert to creatively interpret.  

Quote from: Opaopajr;504942I myself don't partake of such literalist/legalist nonsense, for that path leads to madness in my opinion. I feel that critical thinking and social trust compacts are important for maintaining gaming table health -- and well, at simplest basic gamer friendships so as to not be a douche. Which probably explains that I have little truck with rules lawyering and little love for the community standard of play in D&D 3e/PF and 4e.

This sounds like the typical line of "People who don't play the same way I do are all jerks and swine" - which is always bullshit.  I can play a rules-heavy Champions game and have plenty critical thinking and trust, while still following the rules exactly.  It's just a different style of play.

The E6 guidelines also exist as a 12 page PDF; it is available from various places, like the OP in the ENWorld thread. Unless you mean the actual game rules edited down to 6 levels - that doesn't exist.

Play however you need to play; no skin off my back. But I know two things: 1. There's no such thing as a perfect system, and 2. You're going to eventually need a judge. Which explains why regardless of our English common law or other country's statutory law foundation, you're going to come across confusing situations that don't work with the system in a literal sense, and you'll need someone to adjudicate the result from an interpretive sense.

Now if you have the time to deal with the headache from RAW, lengthy online petition for redress, and wait for errata from on high, more power to you. But that ain't anything I'm interested in doing for my RPGs. Already dealt with more than enough of that growing up playing CCGs (and probably explains why I retired from most of them). And I'm not sorry my opinion harshes anyone's buzz.

If this is a problem with your group, I suggest checking out games with randomized chargen.

My Champions group did well for years because I declared myself final arbiter of chargen. And I was hardcore about disadvantages. I was the guy who openly rolled everyone's Hunteds and DNPCs at the start of the game and kept copies of all the NPC stats in a handy binder.

I knew a group in HS who played Villains & Vigilantes and Heroes Unlimited because they could not trust their players to play Hero in a civil manner. They were good guys, but couldn't help from going all asshat with point buy games.

I'm not really clear why feats are always implicated so heavily in these discussions. -Any- item in the design space which offers players significant choice concerning their characters are ripe for abuse, and as that design space expands the opportunity for disaster increase at an ever escalating rate; for no other reason then the viewpoint of one (or a handful) of designers cannot hope to notice every broken 'combo' while thousands of CharOp users can.

Feats in 3.x were a major contributor in that game but so were class features being mixed and matched, items, substitution levels, prestige classes, straight up errors etc.

It didn't matter that most of them were garbage so long as enough of them existed to eventually create a perfect storm. In 4e picking the right paragon path could sometimes mean "I win".

Most of this I credit to feats giving players abilities they normally would not have, as opposed to increasing the potency of an existing feature (that too can a problematic however).

For instance a feat that gives you 2 more healing surges per day 8 -> 10 is a lot less dangerous than saying you suddenly deal damage to everyone near you when you Teleport, or charge as a move action.

Quote from: Imperator;504920Exactly. I do not worry about this kind of stuff. If some build happens to be negative to the game, either (a) we discuss it and make the changes needed to make things work or (b) I note it down and it becomes part of the bad guys tactics, too.

(b) is a really valuable tip for any situation where the players have discovered a tactic or ability combo that seems unbeatable to you. Once the NPCs start doing the same thing, there are only two possibilities:

(1) The players will realize it's busted and will be amenable to the problem being fixed.

(2) The players will figure out an effective counter for the tactic... which the NPCs can then use.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505137(1) The players will realize it's busted and will be amenable to the problem being fixed.

Hold person, enemies started to carry scrolls, put an end to that shit real quick.

There is NO SUCH THING as common sense in a fictional setting, only a sense of what the GM assumes to be true. This is kinda a fundamental element of RPGs people keep missing. In an RPG session there are no reasonable assumptions outside of either the rules or the GM's decisions. They only seem reasonable because you have enough shared experience not to notice them.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;504778As others have said, you don't always know what'll cause problems until you see it in play.

Would it be reasonable then to want a set of rules which prevent, or at the very least enable you to spot, what doesn't work before it becomes a problem in play?

Quote from: RPGPundit;504820By the same note, I could say that an intelligent GM won't use a system that would create this problem in the first place, and thus the smartest thing a GM can do is not play 3.x

I agree completely.

Quote from: jeff37923;504841Except it isn't a problem with the rules, it is a problem with munchkin Players and ineffective GMs which is then blamed upon the rules of 3.x. If it were a problem with the rules, then it would be far more prevalent than it is.

First, the only reason it isn't more prevalent is it requires system mastery which is difficult, and I suspect not fun for most players (thankfully).

Second, the RPGPundit's comment IS an example of how an effective GM solves the problem, that is, by not using a crappy set of rules which enables players to create this problem in the first place.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;505149Would it be reasonable then to want a set of rules which prevent, or at the very least enable you to spot, what doesn't work before it becomes a problem in play?

No, it wouldn't be reasonable to want that. Because in the end this is a social creative game. And when players are being creative, they will find a way to break things - however thorough and "balanced" the rules are. Thus part of the GM's job is to act as referee and deal with problems as they arise.

In asking for a set of rules which don't allow players to break things, you're asking for a set of rules which stifle player creativity. Which is sort of like asking for a running race in which people keep stopping. It's not reasonable, no.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;505149There is NO SUCH THING as common sense in a fictional setting, only a sense of what the GM assumes to be true. This is kinda a fundamental element of RPGs people keep missing. In an RPG session there are no reasonable assumptions outside of either the rules or the GM's decisions. They only seem reasonable because you have enough shared experience not to notice them.

This whole paragraph would make sense if I wasn't referring to the common sense of Gamemasters. You know, those guys and gals who exist in the Real World?

Quote from: chaosvoyager;505149First, the only reason it isn't more prevalent is it requires system mastery which is difficult, and I suspect not fun for most players (thankfully).

Go Google Pun-Pun and then tell me how many places that build can be found as a reference. The Internet has become a grand equalizer in this.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;505149Second, the RPGPundit's comment IS an example of how an effective GM solves the problem, that is, by not using a crappy set of rules which enables players to create this problem in the first place.

Which I would agree with if it was a rules problem and not a Player type problem.

Face it, the same type of Player who would pull this munchkin bullshit in a 3.x game would also pull this in any other RPG system available to them that they were playing if given the chance.

It's worth a mention (to those ignorant enough to not understand it already), that there's a vast difference in "breaking" the mechanics because there are no rules for an attack done by swinging from a chandolier, and breaking the rules by making your character deal 500 damage when bull - rushing on 5th level.