TheRPGSite

Someone shows up at your OP game with a character that is infinitely powerful. They found a rule loophole, and it seems legal.
What would you do?



"No, not at my table, I don't want to play with you."

Depending on circumstances:
"Uh? That's legal? Interesting. I will have to houserule this, please make another character."
or
"Hahaha! That's a good one! Now show me your real character."
or
"Nope."

I haven't run an open campaign since 1981, and I don't currently run point build games (running OD&D and Classic Traveller).

My OD&D gaming is all play by post, and I roll all the dice, so I give the players a 6 stats, gold, and once they've picked race, social standing. Really no possible way to abuse chargen here.

My Classic Traveller gaming is a bit different, I have the following ways people roll up characters:

(A) By hand using the books on their own time
(B) By hand on Google Hangouts
(C) Using the online chargen

With method A, I had one player who tried to bend the rules, his PC really wasn't over powered, so  was going to ignore it, but then I had to stop running, he was going to play in the next GM's campaign, but got scared off when asked to roll a character face to face.

Another player in a play by post has a suspicious character, and that's a problem. Same play by post campaign has another player who used method C until he got a scout ship. This campaign is dangerously close to collapsing due to my frustration with the chargen. It eventually may just wither and die...

All the other play by post Traveller I'm running, they players have either used A or C, but with C if they needed to "cheat" to get a ship or a character with particular skills, either used my supported cheat methods, or were reasonable (taking the first character with a particular skill for example), or rolled up a few and picked their favorite.

All of this was part of my drive to extend the online chargen. It now makes different mustering out choices to make it easier to get a ship (the original code rolled up to 3 cash benefit rolls first, making a Scout need at least 4 terms to have a chance of a ship) and also adding a specific "hunt" mode where you can specify one of a handful of simple search criteria and it rolls until it meets that criteria. No more rolling hundreds of characters, ignoring the first one that meets the needs (hey, if you've already hit refresh a hundred times, why not a few more and get a really awesome PC). Without this mechanism, all the scout PCs with a ship have been 7 terms, with the cheat mechanism, it's more likely to get one with 3-4 terms.

Frank

I generally don't run games that have many exploitable loopholes in char gen. I don't run open tables where people can just bring in any character they like.

I would probably disallow a character that seemed built to exploit a loophole. If I had to let such a character in the game, well the loophole runs both ways...sell hello to my little NPC friend...

Why would I play with him? I'd tell him he's WON THE FUCKING GAME and move on.

Same as Davethelost.  I don't play that sort of game, and I don't allow "any character you want."

Hell, that's one of the reasons I like OD&Ds 3d6 in order six times.  Your first die roll is strength, period.  Your second is intelligence, period.

Optimize away, Cupcake.

This is one of the challenges of Open Play. You can see how creators of Organized Play wrack their brains coming up with those rules!

I would be clear and honest upfront. Explain why you feel the character build is over-powered and talk up the potential negative impact it's going to have on the game and the other players. I would then offer to sit down and either modify the character to be more in line with the others, or offer them a pre-gen, or give them a few to make up a new character. You understand that it's "legal" from the system perspective but as the GM it's your job to screen characters for just these kinds of potential exploits.

I would encourage my newly found Munchkin that I want them at my table! Just not in a disruptive, power-gaming way. I would reinforce that the hobby thrives on EVERYONE having fun at the table, and generally characters "optimized" to this extent make the game NOT FUN for me (and most of my players). If they get confrontational I generally disinvite them. I had an issue like this in one of my OP games I ran at a game store. I had to boot a player right at character generation because they were obviously there to just Munchkin out a set of numbers and then use those numbers as an opportunity to ruin everyone's day.

If they sincerely want to play, they will compromise and find something that fits. If not, you just found a nice screening method for bad players. :D

Players who abuse loopholes generally hate when loopholes are used against them. IME, best to toss them upfront.

I'd see how it goes for a session and if it's obviously OP, then I'd raise it at the end, and suggest a tweak to fix the loophole - using the experience in play to demonstrate why it needs to be fixed.

It's one of the many reasons why I don't play in games with strangers very often.  When I run a game for strangers, I usually provide pre gens. :)

Useful for finding the event horizon boundaries of any system, but nothing worth rewarding. A lone player running God Mode GM-Usurper! means dead table, always and forever, no exceptions.

Basically it becomes a question, "Who runs your table, the GM or the system?" If it is the system, then what's the point of having a human there. Because judgment is unnecessary you just abdicated your purpose for being present.

So remember the most important word in a GM's repertoire is, "No." This establishes boundaries and a sense of equanimity for all involved. Everyone socially adjusted will thank you, likely even the munchkin, and that's the only group worth worrying about. (Because you aren't getting paid for therapy. :) )

Quote from: bryce0lynch;1008125Someone shows up at your OP game with a character that is infinitely powerful. They found a rule loophole, and it seems legal.
What would you do?

"OK, that's a clever one, and I'll think of a houserule! Now show me the character you prepared for play, will you?"

Quote from: bryce0lynch;1008125Someone shows up at your OP game with a character that is infinitely powerful. They found a rule loophole, and it seems legal.
What would you do?

I don't think I've ever played a game in which being infinitely powerful was possible; I'd most likely stop playing such a game, but if it's just one rule that turned out to mean something the designer did not intend and I like the game otherwise, I would just throw out the rule.

But also consider that people sometimes overreact to things that turn out not to be that powerful; the Moon Druid in 5e, for example, or caster supremacy in lots of D&D-ish games. When I did have some players from another table whose DM had not showed up, I let them play at my table; it turned out their DM allowed them to play home-brew character classes, but they were ultimately no more powerful than standard ones would have been, so it wasn't actually a problem. I probably wouldn't have allowed the characters if I'd known they were not standard up front.

Back when we played OD&D, we would refuse items, levels, ability scores and even characters who migrted from a Monty Haul-ish campaign ("You got how many artifacts from a DM nicknamed Pushover?") if they were too powerful or just didn't suit our campaign. Not really a problem; anyone who is not willing to start a new character is not worth playing with.

Infinatly powerful?  I'm not playing in any games where a charcter could possibly be infiantly powerful.  I reject the premise.

A build you haven't seen before.  Takes advantage of a cleave trick.  Has an effective way of placing their strenght against the monsters weakness, sure.  

Flip the OP around and read it un-charitably and it says. "A new player showed up and he won't jump through my hoops, what a dick head."

Now if this person showed up at my table with a twinked out min maxed munchkin.  I would first judge their appearance, hygiene, social presentation and jokes.  If I didn't want to play with them I wouldn't.  Maybe you can't do that at open play.  Then I would look at their character if it fits its in.  If not then no.  No you can't play a Minatuar.  Yes you can play a cavalier but the game starts with a ship wreck so no horse, not plate, maybe no sword, I've got a pre-made ranger if you prefer.  If they found a loop hole, well its not going to work.   Its not a computer game or a court of law, rules don't matter. My understanding of the world is all that matters, and your understanding.  Try a loop hole that doesn't make sense to me and I'll tell you that.  Nope, thats not how it works.  Page 66 sub paragraph C.  Ok hmmm.  Nope that's not what it says.  Or hey you're right it does say that.  Thats dumb.  We're not doing that.  

But you know what, no one builds an infinatly powerful character, not even in Amber.  The edges and feats and optimizations people do figure out don't matter that much let them play.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;1008125Someone shows up at your OP game with a character that is infinitely powerful. They found a rule loophole, and it seems legal.
What would you do?

Put on my Viking Hat and demonstrate that the Infinite Power of a Player is no match for the Infinite Power of the GM.

The rules are what I say they are. Loopholes only matter to software and machines, not men.

Let's get more specific.

Let's say you're playing D&D 3.5. A player creates a 1st level Psychic Warrior. For purposes of this scenario, let's say that you've decided to allow psionics in your campaign, but that you have the power to adjudicate any ambiguities in the rules.

Now, this psychic warrior has taken the Call Weaponry power at 1st level. Here is the power's rules:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/callWeaponry.htm

How do you rule in the following situations?
1. The psychic warrior calls an elvencraft longbow (from Races of the Wild) to their hand.
2. The psychic warrior calls a splash weapon, such as a flask of holy water, to their hand.
3. The psychic warrior calls an improvised weapon, such as a lantern, to their hand.
4. The psychic warrior calls a siege weapon, such as a ballista, to their hand.
5. The psychic warrior calls a monk's unarmed strike to their hand.

1.  Is he/she an elf? If no, then no.
2.  Maybe, might end up calling an open bucket of oil, and splashing it all over your self.  
3. Is he proficient with improvised weapons?  If no, the nope. If yes the sure you get a random improvised weapon.  Probably a bar stool.
4.  Too big, you don't have the strenth to call that.  Or squish.
5.  Either nope.  Or yep.  A psychic warrior imbuing himself with psychic energy to do damage makes sense to me.

More importantly, if they try all that in one session its time for a chat.  Maybe they just have a new tool and are trying to find out what it does.  Cool, I think that is creative constructive role playing.  Lets talk about that power and work out what it does, what its limits are, and then we will both know.

Maybe he's trying to pull a fast one.  Well maybe I don't want to play with him any more, or maybe I just expain that its only a first level spell and can't do all that.  Since its a psychic power I can add some psychobabble explination if I really want to.

"Oh, right, that's why I never run 3rd edition. Okay, gang, show of hands...5e or 1e?"

Calling a siege weapon to their hand?

"As a shadow overhead blots out the sun, your last living thought is a deep fellow-feeling for Wile E. Coyote."

Quote from: Cave Bear;1008239Let's get more specific.

Let's say you're playing D&D 3.5. A player creates a 1st level Psychic Warrior. For purposes of this scenario, let's say that you've decided to allow psionics in your campaign, but that you have the power to adjudicate any ambiguities in the rules.

Now, this psychic warrior has taken the Call Weaponry power at 1st level. Here is the power's rules:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/callWeaponry.htm

How do you rule in the following situations?
1. The psychic warrior calls an elvencraft longbow (from Races of the Wild) to their hand.

I never allow splats sight unseen in my game. If I'm allowing this splat, though, this would be ok.

Quote2. The psychic warrior calls a splash weapon, such as a flask of holy water, to their hand.

Holy water is under "equipment," not "weapons."

Quote3. The psychic warrior calls an improvised weapon, such as a lantern, to their hand.

No. If it's not the "weapons" list, the player can piss right off. If Call Weaponry could be used like this, it would be called Call Object.

Quote4. The psychic warrior calls a siege weapon, such as a ballista, to their hand.

Siege engines aren't "weapons" in the D&D sense. Your weapon proficiencies don't apply to them, you don't make attack rolls with them, the usual rules for Full Attack and so on don't apply, etc. When a spell or ability in 3.5 says "weapon," it doesn't mean "any old thing you can think of that does damage."

Quote5. The psychic warrior calls a monk's unarmed strike to their hand.

An unarmed strike is an attack, not a weapon.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1008239Now, this psychic warrior has taken the Call Weaponry power at 1st level. Here is the power's rules:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/callWeaponry.htm

How do you rule in the following situations?
1. The psychic warrior calls an elvencraft longbow (from Races of the Wild) to their hand.
2. The psychic warrior calls a splash weapon, such as a flask of holy water, to their hand.
3. The psychic warrior calls an improvised weapon, such as a lantern, to their hand.
4. The psychic warrior calls a siege weapon, such as a ballista, to their hand.
5. The psychic warrior calls a monk's unarmed strike to their hand.

1. Fine, your bow is made by elves. If you want a +1 bow it takes 4 more PP.
2. Not a weapon.
3. Not a weapon.*
4. Not a weapon, for the purposes of the power.
5. Not a weapon.

* After thinking about it a little bit, I might bend on this. Depending on the thematic nature of the power, if it was appropriate for a lantern to be a weapon in that instance, I would allow it. Say, fighting a mummy or some other flammable critter.

Honestly, if a player tried to argue he could summon a monk's punch to his hand, he's one of those contentious jackasses that ruins RPGs and probably needs to be run off from the game.

5. OK, you summon a Monk's punch to your hand.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;1008125Someone shows up at your OP game with a character that is infinitely powerful. They found a rule loophole, and it seems legal.

What would you do?

Tell them my game's not going to be a good fit for that style of play.

I'd like to hear what the OP was thinking of when he talked about legal but infinitely (which I am taking as hyperbolic) powerful exploit. Cave Bear's doesn't work in 3e, but let's say it did. In that case, that is simply an instance of the rules not being so unbelievably lawyerly/legal-contract level specific* to exclude an overpowered use. I have never found such exploits to be a real problem in my games, because player's are pretty good about not pressing the issue when DM's say either "that's an utterly-ridiculous interpretation of that rule,' or, 'if I were to allow that, it would break the game open, and then I'd have to bring something equally as stupid online to contest that build. We're not going down that road.'
*and even that's a misnomer, because 'no reasonable individual would interpret that line of text in that fashion is a valid legal argument

What tends to actually be a problem more in games (IMO) are usually more subtle broken builds that are simply overly good (not great, not infinite power, just a little too good), or break a benefit/opportunity-cost curve in some way. 3e's perfect example might be clerics getting all sorts of niceties in exchange for having to be the party healing-battery, but then being readily easily able to hand that responsibility off to low cost wands of curing.

As to advise to give, or what I'd do about it. I tend to just give a brief speech at the beginning when DMing new people about how we are all adults trying to have fun playing a game, not here to break the game over our knee and make everyone else want to play something else. "Don't be a jerk" is a surprisingly effective phrase.

Either there are no loopholes to exploit in the games we play or my players aren't asshole who would try that crap because they aren't trying to best the game or prove some point. I also don't allow someone to just show up with an unusual character he's concocted without talking to me about it in advance.

The question is why the hell are you playing a game that makes it possible for a player to  manipulate the rules to become infinitely powerful?

Quote from: Cave Bear;1008239Let's get more specific.

Let's say you're playing D&D 3.5. A player creates a 1st level Psychic Warrior. For purposes of this scenario, let's say that you've decided to allow psionics in your campaign, but that you have the power to adjudicate any ambiguities in the rules.

Now, this psychic warrior has taken the Call Weaponry power at 1st level. Here is the power's rules:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/callWeaponry.htm

How do you rule in the following situations?
1. The psychic warrior calls an elvencraft longbow (from Races of the Wild) to their hand.
2. The psychic warrior calls a splash weapon, such as a flask of holy water, to their hand.
3. The psychic warrior calls an improvised weapon, such as a lantern, to their hand.
4. The psychic warrior calls a siege weapon, such as a ballista, to their hand.
5. The psychic warrior calls a monk's unarmed strike to their hand.

1. Legitimate. Unless the item does not exist within the campaign setting.
2. Not a weapon, fails.
3. Not a weapon, fails.
4. Not a weapon usable by a warrior in single combat, fails.
5. Not a weapon, a skill, fails.

That one would be pretty easy to adjudicate.

OK, I have changed my ruling slightly on 5. Rather than a Monk's unarmed strike hitting your hand for damage, the hand (only) of a Monk is called to your hand. It is severed at teh wrist and has no special properties.  The Monk whose hand you just called is likely to come looking for you... Alternatively the entire Monk is summoned. Roll for reaction, and hope you didn't call a Level One...

But if you are the GM you can, and often should, say "No" at any time.

Quote from: Dumarest;1008461Either there are no loopholes to exploit in the games we play or my players aren't asshole who would try that crap because they aren't trying to best the game or prove some point. I also don't allow someone to just show up with an unusual character he's concocted without talking to me about it in advance.

From other conversations, I think like myself, you have the latter case. My players want to build characters to match a "cool" concept, not that are ridiculously powerful. In fact, my players have fun picking out disadvantages that are way more disadvantageous than any I would put into a random table. (Disadvantaged underground, for example.)

My players also like to build their characters together. They'll think about concepts and stuff beforehand, but then they'll talk together to cover bases or give someone a niche in which they are really interested. Sometimes they'll play off each other--one time one player made a character that hated another character's species in a formal sort of way, to the point where the character took the hated species' language, so as to insult them more efficiently.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1008724The question is why the hell are you playing a game that makes it possible for a player to  manipulate the rules to become infinitely powerful?

How many systems outside of d20 even have this problem to begin with? Maybe some editions of Shadowrun?

Quote from: Cave Bear;1008239Now, this psychic warrior has taken the Call Weaponry power at 1st level. Here is the power's rules:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/callWeaponry.htm

How do you rule in the following situations?
1. The psychic warrior calls an elvencraft longbow (from Races of the Wild) to their hand.
2. The psychic warrior calls a splash weapon, such as a flask of holy water, to their hand.
3. The psychic warrior calls an improvised weapon, such as a lantern, to their hand.
4. The psychic warrior calls a siege weapon, such as a ballista, to their hand.
5. The psychic warrior calls a monk's unarmed strike to their hand.

1: They are an elf? No? Then no.
2: Sounds ok.
3: That starts to stretch things. Depends on whats called. and how often.
4: This will be hilarious as they are either pinned,  or possibly killed as it lands on them. Or something bad happens if they didnt take into account space.  Or any other logistics problems with trying this stunt.
5: ummm. No. Its not a weapon its an ability. If you allow that then they can call things like spells, especially Mordenkainen's sword. Just no. No. and no.

The more it looks like the player is trying to create an "I win" button the less likely Im going to agree to it.

Also as a general rule its idiotic to even consider allowing a walk in character thats pumped to the max unless everyone else is too. This s why as a DM I have walk ins roll up a character on the spot or look over the character and go No, yes, No, drop this down a few points, etc.

I ran into this problem full tilt when I allowed an open session of Rifts and got some players with characters absurdly overpowered to the point all they were there for apparently was to just show off how godlike they were. I had to take two aside and explain to them that they needed to tone it down ASAP or Id have to remove them or call for rolling a new character.

In that case the crux of the problem was that two of the characters were from Phase World and I should have said NO the second "Phase world" and "my character" were used in remotely the same sentence.

I also had one player create a rather overtorqued PC for Call of Cthulhu once. But was able to circumvent that as, well, its Call of Cthulhu and no matter how good your PC is. Those things from beyond are magnitudes more powerful. The PC could pulverize some of the lesser critters though.

We also had one player come in and try to pass off a Barbarian+Monk combo that used both classes unarmed defense bonuses combined. I then pointed out that its right there in the book that you cant do that. The DM added a "Sorry no we arent using option human generation and sorry no you cant start with a magic item you cant afford to buy. But if you want to take a docking in EXP for a level or two then hmm, sure go for it since its just a +1 hammer. Once you've garnered 2500 exp you can start levelling normally. Till then half your EXP gained goes to paying it off."

Sometimes its just a simple matter of the player misreading the rules. Multiclassing seems to draw this one out alot.

Othertimes it is a matter of the player deliberately misreading the rules. Sorry. no. Polymorph does not allow you to give someone 20s in all stats, or even one stat.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1008765How many systems outside of d20 even have this problem to begin with? Maybe some editions of Shadowrun?

It depends entirely on how hyperbolic we consider the term 'infinitely powerful'. The only thing that comes close to that that I know of is Pun Pun, where in a supposed game of fantasy adventurers but at 1st level you can attain the power level of the 'gods' of the game system. Pun Pun, however, is actually just a white-room construct designed to prove a point (a rather unimportant one at that). It literally takes collusion from the DM to achieve. So it genuinely has no purpose except pointing out the loose rule boundaries on full expansion 3e D&D.

Beyond that, there's probably some rules bending in some game where a literal reading of some rule lets someone create an infinite action loop. Which is a long way from infinitely powerful, but if taken literally could readily collapse a game.

Going lower down the totem pole of power, there are plenty of rules sets which have poorly defined resolution mechanics or ones which allow very powerful enemies to be defeated because they don't specifically have immunity. I think TSR-era D&D has some trouble with rock-to-mud/mud-to-rock combos spaced one initiative segment apart which can no-save (er, no save specifically specified by the rules) take out most non-fliers. Also some martial arts moves in like Oriental Adventures that are meant to be used on NPCs and not monsters, and thus ping off opponent's strength score. Or low-level psionic abilities (especially in 2e) which completely hose high level monsters who happen not to have been built with an eye to the psionic rules.

Eventually we're just bleeding into the realm of 'the rules do a poor job of explaining what would happen in this given situation. If you then decide that that means it goes in the player's favor, that's really powerful.' There's plenty of those situations flying about, but so what?

I'm taking "infinitely powerful" as hyperbolic, i.e. "so powerful it makes everyone else look like a chump and appropriate-tier monsters look like gnats." It doesn't take much rule-bending or DM collusion for a 3.5 Druid to throw bears at everything, rendering the Fighter null and void. There is a lot in general you can do with 3.x by cherry-picking feats, class levels, and spells to be bizarrely powerful without going to the asinine levels of rule-bending needed for Pun-Pun.

From what I remember, there's stuff in the 2e expansions that breaks the game pretty hard if allowed. Dart fighters are also a bit OP.

Yeah, but there we are sliding into simply 'overpowered,' or simply 'painfully obvious best option.' Those are no fun, (everyone feels the compulsion to play CoDzillas instead of fighters, or all fighters use darts instead of the type of fighter they wanted to play). That's... just too low a bar to set, in my mind (there are so many examples that listing them becomes pointless).

I would suggest we at least set the threshold such that it makes nonsense out of some part of the game. Example: in 3e, the half-ogre, warhulk, Hulking Hurler builds could carry dozens to hundreds of boulders, could have effectively +infinity to hit (or close enough for game purposes), and do more hp damage than anyone had. They effectively 'break' the game looking anything like you expect D&D to look like, with AC and HP mechanics being a dominant factor in mechanical game success.

Hmm, well speaking for myself, I make a point of fixing the rules I don't think make sense, including the "merely" overpowered, too-good, etc., by making changes to have things match more like what I think is appropriate.

Since the games I play tend to be pretty well edited and playtested (and don't have super-powerful magic/psionics, and if/when they do, I tend to limit or remove them from my campaigns), there haven't been all that many of those issues.

Perhaps the silliest such thing in TFT was the "halfling thrower of doom" especially if you stacked all the rules in Advanced Melee so you had a halfling with thrown weapons talent throwing handfuls of throwing stars at specific body part targets. But that's mostly prevented by converting the "racial" halfling +3 missile bonus into free knowledge of the thrown weapons talent so it doesn't stack. I didn't have to do that though because I had ZERO players who ever chose to actually play a halfling, and I didn't make such builds as NPCs.

I remember an old article about two character types for TFT, the "Flinger" and the "Blob."  Our TFT ref's reaction was "Amusing, but no."  Actually, nobody even thought of trying them.

Because, you know, we're not utter rampaging fuckmortons.

Depending on circumstance and the loophole in question:

1. "Hey, good catch! It works this once, then the game's fantasy physics closes this loophole in the space-time continuum, and I add a house rule to our list."

2. "This one's too weird/disruptive, I'm house ruling it right now."

3. "No, and get lost."

Honestly though, I don't think I've had to make a single RAW v. RAI call like this since DMing 4e. As a player I did once take advantage of the forced surrender rule via some item combo, and then gave it up.

Stormbringer made it possible to roll up a Melnibonean Noble-Warrior-Sorcerer-Priest who could then summon and bind demons to his weapons and armour, and do the same for his buddies. This would result in armour of effective invulnerability and weapons of kill-it-all.  You had to have good dice rolls to get such a character, and it actually fit within the game. It was also "balanced" by the chance of rolling up a blind, crippled beggar.  There were also ways that such a character could meet his end.

Having played my share of Warhammer and other point based army list games I am familiar with the sub-game of stretch the allowed options to the absolute limits. It can be a fun intellectual exercise, but no longer interests me. The old trick of piling the tabletop full of "naked in the rain" troops with a base points cost of -1 for example to allow you essentially unlimited points for the good stuff.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008806I remember an old article about two character types for TFT, the "Flinger" and the "Blob."  Our TFT ref's reaction was "Amusing, but no."  Actually, nobody even thought of trying them.

Because, you know, we're not utter rampaging fuckmortons.

Heh.

I dug up "The Flinger and the Blob" from The Space Gamer and read it just now. Seems like it worked for the author because he was playing solo and so had a cooperative GM and opponent in himself, including a couple of bent rules. Those are not "the ultimate fighters" in TFT, and would be wiped out by uncooperative opponents even if the GM didn't limit the number of thrown weapons they could have at the ready, and/or not let their adj-DX-zero target engage anyone. Missile weapons would wipe them out, getting engaged would wipe them out, opponents with decent armor would wipe them out, opponents who use cover and/or win initiative would wipe them out, etc.

We did use the "armored physicker" design a couple of times in the 4-PC programmed adventures, though it was of dubious use because the "Blob" is not very useful even if you do let him engage enemies.

We had a few rare characters with specialized thrown weapons, but they were special auxiliaries rather than "better than real weapons" fighters. I think the ones with flaming oil flasks were the most feared, but that also made them priority targets who tended to die quickly from arrows and falling and setting themselves on fire.

I got the feeling that the Flinger and the Blob were mostly "Hey, look at the goofy shit you can do within the rules, isn't this wacky?"

I don't expect many people actually used them.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1008835Stormbringer made it possible to roll up a Melnibonean Noble-Warrior-Sorcerer-Priest who could then summon and bind demons to his weapons and armour, and do the same for his buddies. This would result in armour of effective invulnerability and weapons of kill-it-all.  You had to have good dice rolls to get such a character, and it actually fit within the game. It was also "balanced" by the chance of rolling up a blind, crippled beggar.  There were also ways that such a character could meet his end.

Weren't some of those ways the outcome of trying to summon and bind demons and then rolling badly?

It's a conversation you see in GURPS circles from time to time: that there is purportedly one particular tactic, or skill at a certain level, which is invincible in battle.  I find the premise tiresome as well as moronic.  Quite aside from that these scenarios tend to focus around fat, dumb and happy mooks clustered in a neatly group and wedded to straight-ahead attacks (an OPFOR that needs less by way of an invincible spell/skill combo than two blokes working a Gatling gun), I'm playing GURPS, not Squad Leader.  Every Johnny One-Note needs to eat, sleep, bathe and use the jakes from time to time.

But anyway ... one of my aphorisms is that the phrase "Nice try, but no" is one of the chief weapons in any GM's arsenal, and a GM unwilling to use it at need is hamstringing himself.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008852I got the feeling that the Flinger and the Blob were mostly "Hey, look at the goofy shit you can do within the rules, isn't this wacky?"

I don't expect many people actually used them.

I think that's the case with most of the more extreme (greater than 'strictly better option' builds, by my own categorization). If they were intended for use in game, there would be more 'get spellcasting and martial combat, without paying the offset cost' type builds floating around on the internet, and fewer '1st-level kobold can be a god (with DM collusion)' or 'commoner poultrymancer of the apocalypse.'

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008852I got the feeling that the Flinger and the Blob were mostly "Hey, look at the goofy shit you can do within the rules, isn't this wacky?"

I don't expect many people actually used them.

Yeah. To me they serve to point to weaknesses in the rules that maybe should be plugged (or invitations to think about what makes sense versus the places where rules and lack of sanity-check rulings could break down). Or just "hey isn't this wacky?", as you wrote.

In this case, I think bolas are too reliable at high-DX, and want some sort of saving throw by the defender, and the Thrown Weapons talent probably shouldn't let you throw them on the turn you ready them - in fact, I don't see bolas being the kind of thing you can generally treat as a compact immediately-ready ammo supply, and probably want a fair amount of free space to use well/safely.

War boomerangs are also big things that it's not easy to carry a bunch of at the ready, so I take it as a heads up that a rul(e/ing) is wanted for those who try.

And the stats/rules for throwing up to 12 shuriken at a time do want some investigation - 1d-2 per hit is probably too much damage at the high end against unarmored targets, especially in a barrage, which sort of points to the weakness of cumulative damage anyway.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1008765How many systems outside of d20 even have this problem to begin with? Maybe some editions of Shadowrun?

ANY game. ANY.

It doesnt matter how locked down your rules are. How simple or how complex. Someone will either deliberately or accidentally misinterpret them. I have seen this so many freaking tiimes. This isnt even taking into account the "Well the rules dont say I cant." types who utterly abuse that phrase to the point it has lost its original intent.

ANY game.

Quote from: Omega;1008968ANY game. ANY.

It doesnt matter how locked down your rules are. How simple or how complex. Someone will either deliberately or accidentally misinterpret them. I have seen this so many freaking tiimes. This isnt even taking into account the "Well the rules dont say I cant." types who utterly abuse that phrase to the point it has lost its original intent.

ANY game.

Seems to me that's not any game - it's anyone failing to read the rules properly.

Quote from: Skarg;1008972Seems to me that's not any game - it's anyone failing to read the rules properly.

No. Sometimes its the players reading the rules properly. Just not the way you or I might read the rules properly. Even when the rules seam clear as day someone will for whatever reason interpret them differently. So yes it is any game.

To paraphrase Grom -

Show me on the doll where the bad players touched you.

Quote from: Omega;1008968ANY game. ANY.

It doesnt matter how locked down your rules are. How simple or how complex. Someone will either deliberately or accidentally misinterpret them. I have seen this so many freaking tiimes. This isnt even taking into account the "Well the rules dont say I cant." types who utterly abuse that phrase to the point it has lost its original intent.

ANY game.

"No, I won't allow that.  And don't be a dickweevil."

Quote from: RPGPundit;1008724The question is why the hell are you playing a game that makes it possible for a player to  manipulate the rules to become infinitely powerful?

Because someone started the thread. And also because of 3.5/Pathfinder, Rifts, Shadowrun, Exalted, V:tM, and a host of less popular games;)!

Quote from: Omega;1008980No. Sometimes its the players reading the rules properly. Just not the way you or I might read the rules properly. Even when the rules seam clear as day someone will for whatever reason interpret them differently. So yes it is any game.

It seems to me clearly false that all games can be read/interpreted properly to have rules loopholes that make a basic character invincible.

On the other hand you get a lot of GMs overreaching to stuff that isn't really very powerful at all. For example my 3.5ed DM banned warlocks because I was able to fly at will and shoot lasers at will despite my lasers being really weak because I killed one t-rex out in the open by flying out of its reach and slowly zapping it. At least have me be attacked by pterasaurs or something.

Quote from: Skarg;1009076It seems to me clearly false that all games can be read/interpreted properly to have rules loopholes that make a basic character invincible.

I agree.

Some game rules are written poorly in that they are ambiguous, contradict other rules, or even contradict other parts of the self-same rule. Some people will willfully misinterpret a well written rule. And some people are just bad at reading and understanding and therefore will, without malicious intent, misinterpret even a well written rule. At best, all that proves is that

"All rule sets can be either interpreted or misinterpreted to have a rules loophole that makes a basic character invincible."

I'd need examples of invincible (or nearly invincible) basic characters for each of the game systems that I am familiar with before I'd accept even that modified premise.

Quote from: Bren;1009280"All rule sets can be either interpreted or misinterpreted to have a rules loophole that makes a basic character invincible."

I'd need examples of invincible (or nearly invincible) basic characters for each of the game systems that I am familiar with before I'd accept even that modified premise.

(hands Mr. Bren a gold medal)

Quote from: Bren;1009280I agree.

Some game rules are written poorly in that they are ambiguous, contradict other rules, or even contradict other parts of the self-same rule. Some people will willfully misinterpret a well written rule. And some people are just bad at reading and understanding and therefore will, without malicious intent, misinterpret even a well written rule. At best, all that proves is that

"All rule sets can be either interpreted or misinterpreted to have a rules loophole that makes a basic character invincible."

I'd need examples of invincible (or nearly invincible) basic characters for each of the game systems that I am familiar with before I'd accept even that modified premise.

The classic example of poorly written, ambiguous, misinterpereted rules ever is the wargame DBA. The actual rules are only 4 pages, but for well over 25 years now people have been having the exact same arguments about how they should be played. 4 pages, 3 decades of the same arguments. Makes D&D look positively ironclad.

(scritches his head)  Seems to me that if you choose to play a game with only four pages of rules, you're accepting that (a) it's either a very simple game to play, or (b) there's a lot of latitude in interpretation.  Arguing for three decades over how to play a game with four pages of rules is God's way of telling a person that he needs some quieter hobby.

Oh, the same people who debate these rules claim that they are only four pages because that is all they need to be, simple and elegant, playable by the average 8 year old, etc. They are written like a legal contract.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1008239Let's get more specific.

Let's say you're playing D&D 3.5. A player creates a 1st level Psychic Warrior. For purposes of this scenario, let's say that you've decided to allow psionics in your campaign, but that you have the power to adjudicate any ambiguities in the rules.

Now, this psychic warrior has taken the Call Weaponry power at 1st level. Here is the power's rules:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/callWeaponry.htm

How do you rule in the following situations?
1. The psychic warrior calls an elvencraft longbow (from Races of the Wild) to their hand.
2. The psychic warrior calls a splash weapon, such as a flask of holy water, to their hand.
3. The psychic warrior calls an improvised weapon, such as a lantern, to their hand.
4. The psychic warrior calls a siege weapon, such as a ballista, to their hand.
5. The psychic warrior calls a monk's unarmed strike to their hand.

• I rule that actually teleporting some random weapon from across the multiverse into your hand with no listed restrictions is the stupidest fucking power I've ever seen.
• I rule that you form the weapon yourself like some psi-blade, and can form only weapons that you are familiar with and have trained in forming - as represented by your weapon proficiencies.
• I then tell the player they're banned from my table until they hunt down the creator of that power and kick them in the genitals repeatedly.
• We then never play 3.5 again.

Simple, and elegant.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1008239Let's get more specific.

Let's say you're playing D&D 3.5. A player creates a 1st level Psychic Warrior. For purposes of this scenario, let's say that you've decided to allow psionics in your campaign, but that you have the power to adjudicate any ambiguities in the rules.

Now, this psychic warrior has taken the Call Weaponry power at 1st level. Here is the power's rules:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/callWeaponry.htm

How do you rule in the following situations?
1. The psychic warrior calls an elvencraft longbow (from Races of the Wild) to their hand.
2. The psychic warrior calls a splash weapon, such as a flask of holy water, to their hand.
3. The psychic warrior calls an improvised weapon, such as a lantern, to their hand.
4. The psychic warrior calls a siege weapon, such as a ballista, to their hand.
5. The psychic warrior calls a monk's unarmed strike to their hand.

A. Buy me a DM's copy of what ever the fuck book the Psychic Warrior is in, so I can properly familiarize myself with the full rules for the class or you don't get to play one.  No, the SRD is not enough.

1. See A. Buy me a DM's copy of Races of the Wild so I can learn the rules associated with elvencraft longbows or you can't have one.

Omega: NO Psychic Warriors are not allowed in my campaign. Play a normal character class.  You would have known this if you had bothered asking me shit about my game world before making up your character. In any case i do not run 3.5. So this is a moot issue as it could never come up in any of the games I actually run.

Notice two important things. 1. The requirement of the player to provide me with teh full rules (at their own expense) for the non-standard stuff they want to do.  Players expect the GM to buy all teh books, so this seems fair.  2. The use of the word 'NO!". Why do some many people seem to have forgotten that this word exists?

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009443They are written like a legal contract.

If it's only 4 pages long that is a really, really simple (or a very poorly written) legal contract. Or both.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;1008125Someone shows up at your OP game with a character that is infinitely powerful. They found a rule loophole, and it seems legal.
What would you do?

I pull out my character sheet and sit down to see what adventure this "someone" has planned for us today. Simply put, there's only one "someone" that's infinitely powerful and that's the GM.

That being said, "infinitely powerful" is usually infinitely in one direction or "vector" if you will. Imagine east-west. A good GM will find an orthogonal vector or challenge (imagine north-south) against which this infinite power has no effect. So the character is "infinitely charming", send a horde of aliens which can't be negotiated with. So the character has "infinite hit points", send a horde of charming diplomats to negotiate a trade treaty. In my experience the more "infinite" a character is the more "polarized" the character is and the easier it is for a clever GM to find a loophole to the loophole.

PS, edit, think of a ring of three wishes. That's technically infinitely powerful, but just remember how a djinn can manipulate the wording of your wish to your PC's own detriment.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008995"No, I won't allow that.  And don't be a dickweevil."

I'd still say that just not playing a game based on manipulative rules-mastery by players is the first answer. But the above is the best second answer if for some reason you must play that game.

Does anyone else remember the Diplomancer build for D&D 3.5? You know, the guy who was supposed to be so infinitely charming that he could get away with anything?

I solved the problem of that one by making the player role-play how his character was charming the target. He couldn't do it since his typical approach was to say to a NPC, "hey motherfucker, give me your stuff" and then roll dice. Most people who are capable of coming up with an "invincible" build like that can't role-play worth a shit because they are so focused on rules mastery.

Quote from: jeff37923;1009814Does anyone else remember the Diplomancer build for D&D 3.5? You know, the guy who was supposed to be so infinitely charming that he could get away with anything?

I solved the problem of that one by making the player role-play how his character was charming the target. He couldn't do it since his typical approach was to say to a NPC, "hey motherfucker, give me your stuff" and then roll dice.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

Yeah a 'RP then roll' aproach should kibosh that BS.

Quote from: jeff37923;1009814Does anyone else remember the Diplomancer build for D&D 3.5? You know, the guy who was supposed to be so infinitely charming that he could get away with anything?

I solved the problem of that one by making the player role-play how his character was charming the target. He couldn't do it since his typical approach was to say to a NPC, "hey motherfucker, give me your stuff" and then roll dice. Most people who are capable of coming up with an "invincible" build like that can't role-play worth a shit because they are so focused on rules mastery.

But fixed DCs! :eek: They are not text examples, mere suggestions to make judgments. They are the essence of Truth! :cool: Without hard, defined values to unify all (and in darkness bind them...) all is lost to a mad tea party of mother may I! :mad: You risk the very time-space continuum itself! :eek:

Quote from: Voros;1009947Yeah a 'RP then roll' aproach should kibosh that BS.

As opposed to "roll if you trigger a certain ability":)?

And then we get PbtA games, which are "RP, then roll, if the RP triggers a certain situational ability";).

This why I don't play most "modern" RPGs.  Too many damn rules.  If you can't fit it in 32 pages is it really worth playing?

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010106This why I don't play most "modern" RPGs.  Too many damn rules.  If you can't fit it in 32 pages is it really worth playing?

What are the non-modern RPGs that actually fit in 32 pages? I can't think of a single RPG that I knew of before the mid 80s that was that short (unless you used really large pages); maybe Melee/Wizard but it's not really an RPG before you include In The Labyrinth. Rules light seems more modern to me.

If you converted Original D&D to full size pages instead of digest size, it's 57 or 58 pages.

Pretty sure Metamorphosis Alpha was 32 pages.

I'll admit 32 is maybe a bit short. Old man grumbling for effect. But certainly a good game can be written in about 100 pages, including setting.  My players are always amazed at how short the rulebooks I use are.  Stormbringer weighs in at a hefty 165 pages!

Quote from: rawma;1010165What are the non-modern RPGs that actually fit in 32 pages? I can't think of a single RPG that I knew of before the mid 80s that was that short (unless you used really large pages); maybe Melee/Wizard but it's not really an RPG before you include In The Labyrinth. Rules light seems more modern to me.

Agree, rules light is the majority of modern games these days.

If so many modern games are rules light, why are the rule books so heavy?

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010407If so many modern games are rules light, why are the rule books so heavy?

Think we're probably not all talking about the same games. However, one could have a game where you could say that they are rules light, but still have large rulebooks simply because the game has assumed settings, bestiaries, example characters/NPCs, or whatever else contained within the core rulebooks.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010407If so many modern games are rules light, why are the rule books so heavy?

All that angst packed between the covers?

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010407If so many modern games are rules light, why are the rule books so heavy?

Kind of wondering that myself. I haven't noticed any move to short or terse rule books in this century. What are all these modern rule books that are only a few dozen pages in length?

Quote from: bryce0lynch;1008125Someone shows up at your OP game with a character that is infinitely powerful. They found a rule loophole, and it seems legal.
What would you do?



"No, not at my table, I don't want to play with you."

Ask them why they are power gaming. Then point them to another game table they might click with.

I've seen people powergame for two reasons:

1) Strongly hates losing and will get uncharacteristically animated about it (e.g. grown men and women complaining, screaming, and crying)
2) Begrudgingly feels the need to keep up with those who live in the first group

Lite doesn't make a RPG immune to power gaming. For example with OD&D the focus becomes the getting the right magic items.

The only cure is the referee fixing it in how he runs his campaign.

My approach is to insist on first person roleplaying and I treat the setting with a life of its own. A OD&D power gamer trying to stuff quest comes off as a ridiculous shopaholic.

This is what actually what going on with one of the players in the campaign I run on Wednesday. Twenty years ago I might have been bothered by it but now I know what likely going to happen. Either my emphasis on roleplaying and bringing the setting to life will get the player to engage with the setting as his character. Or he will quit as he feels I am not catering to his power fantasies.

The Wednesday group has an impressive array of magic item already due to some lucky breaks and one of the players being smart about being an Merchant Adventurer (a class in my rules). Right now the group is focused on getting a captured ship to another realm to register it so they can bring it back to their home city.

One of the players asked me whether I am worried about the amount of stuff they have. I told

QuoteNo I am not worried, it is the party that should be worried. Your wealth is getting the group noticed. The fact you are averaging 6th level means if the group is not careful they will find themselves trying to fight in the wrong weight class.

I faced this situation with GURPS, Fate/Fudge, AD&D, Fantasy Hero, Runequest, and other RPGs complex, broken, elegant, and simple. The answer always rested on how I handled the campaign as a referee not a better set of rules.

For the record the other one sentence stereotypes of the other players.

1) A player who likes the detail of my setting and want explore everything
2) The foremention powergamer who calculated the best way to get ahead is to gain lots and lots of magic items.
3) A player who likes combat and just in it for the fights, pretty much the powergamer's sidekick.
4) A player who wants to be entertained by engaging in some escapism. Basically wants to adventure all the time and ignore everything else. Which BTW way I am OK with and can accommodate. The method of achieving is convincing the party to sail the high seas and look for adventure.

Hence why the party is in a foreign port trying to register a very nice ship they captured from a neighboring kingdom. On the good side the port is known for its corruption and the party has lots of silver and gold crowns. The bad side is the kingdom they took the ship off has dragons in its royal forces. And the kingdom was created by PCs 15 years ago who  gave me lots of notes on how they are running it. Including one short blurb on what would happen if any of their ships disappear.

Side Note: People like to mock Gygax about his recommendation on strict time keeping. I will say what happening in my current campaign is exactly why that advice is important. A lot of the PCs success so far is due to how they keeping ahead of things by moving around.

At the beginning of this week session is the point at which the Dragon Empire (the kingdom the ship was taken from) is aware that their ship is missing. When I rolled the encounter I noted that the ship was at the beginning of a month long patrol.

When shit went down and the PC victorious. They didn't dick around. They weren't aware of the deadline but they were competent to conceal the ship long enough to get to a spot were they could a large enough crew  to sail south. The date of arrival at the new port happens to be one week after the ship was due to arrive back her home port.

Quote from: estar;1010465Lite doesn't make a RPG immune to power gaming. For example with OD&D the focus becomes the getting the right magic items.

"Good luck with that, Cupcake.  Oh, sure, there's a Rod of Lordly Might out there.... somewhere..."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010467"Good luck with that, Cupcake.  Oh, sure, there's a Rod of Lordly Might out there.... somewhere..."

Being a stingy asshole as a referee is of course an option and stuff questing doesn't require the collection of the best magic items in the book. Dealing with it doesn't require blue bolting the PCs (or items) in question.

Being a stingy asshole as a referee has always worked for me.  And if they really want something, they can work to get it.

Not having a fully stocked magic item shoppe on every street corner does not make you a stingy asshole as a referee. Unless your standard is Monty Haul, then I guess it kind of does.  I am with Gronan, I like magic items to be special and well, magic.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010487And if they really want something, they can work to get it.

Likewise so what the issue?

Quote from: estar;1010509Likewise so what the issue?

Only how much we respectively enjoy tormenting our players.  I prefer to taunt them openly.  "Your bitter tears of rage warm the cockles of my black, withered heart, little man."

:D

I'm just goofin' around.

Oh, plus "You can TRY powergaming in OD&D, but good luck."  Players can want all the magic they want.  IN fact, that's a great basis for the campaign.

Quote from: Bren;1010434Kind of wondering that myself. I haven't noticed any move to short or terse rule books in this century. What are all these modern rule books that are only a few dozen pages in length?

Look at the actual rules section of most PbtA games. Or the simple step-by-step layout of the game rules in the games of Ben Robbins (Microscope, Follow), Stephen Dewey (Ten Candles) or Meg Baker (1001 Nights, PSI Run). One can dislike these games (although best to actually read or play them before doing so) but they can't be criticized for being convoluted, rambling or laid out unclearly.

How many pages do they run?  And is the whole thing contained in one book or do they run to multiple volumes?  That is to say how many pages does the whole rule book run? Not just the "rules section".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010518Only how much we respectively enjoy tormenting our players.  I prefer to taunt them openly.  "Your bitter tears of rage warm the cockles of my black, withered heart, little man.".

I'm guy who lets people trash his setting. It not going to be easy but what happens happens. Just realize they will be the NPCs you contend with in the next campaign. Rinse and repeat for 35 years.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010518I'm just goofin' around.

:D

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010519Oh, plus "You can TRY powergaming in OD&D, but good luck."  Players can want all the magic they want.  IN fact, that's a great basis for the campaign.

I had incompetent players and groups. But I had groups that had their shit down as well and not only survive but thrive. With these groups the day comes when they get what they need to topple kingdoms. And I let them topple them. Generally what they have at that point is NOT whatever scheme they were thinking of at the beginning. But rather what opportunity and circumstances give them during the course of the campaign.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010106This why I don't play most "modern" RPGs.  Too many damn rules.  If you can't fit it in 32 pages is it really worth playing?

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010188Pretty sure Metamorphosis Alpha was 32 pages.

I'll admit 32 is maybe a bit short. Old man grumbling for effect. But certainly a good game can be written in about 100 pages, including setting.  My players are always amazed at how short the rulebooks I use are.  Stormbringer weighs in at a hefty 165 pages!

Most games, if you remove the setting, examples of using the rules, and the advice, would come well under 32 pages.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1010413Think we're probably not all talking about the same games. However, one could have a game where you could say that they are rules light, but still have large rulebooks simply because the game has assumed settings, bestiaries, example characters/NPCs, or whatever else contained within the core rulebooks.

Yeah, that;).

Quote from: Voros;1010540Look at the actual rules section of most PbtA games.

How about you do that and tell us the answer? And then compare it to games from before 2000. The games published in the last 15 years or so that I've seen in a store or listed with page count on Drive Thru and such all have very long page counts. Honor+Intrigue certainly has a lengthy page count and it's not a particularly complicated or overly detailed game, probably on a par with RQ2 or OD&D, but with a longer page count than either.

QuoteOr the simple step-by-step layout of the game rules in the games of Ben Robbins (Microscope, Follow), Stephen Dewey (Ten Candles) or Meg Baker (1001 Nights, PSI Run). One can dislike these games (although best to actually read or play them before doing so) but they can't be criticized for being convoluted, rambling or laid out unclearly.

Never seen or played any of these. Never heard of most of them. Are they an open RPG, like the vast majority of games published before 2000, or something with a very narrow focus as to what a PC can attempt to do? Because if they aren't open RPGs then you are comparing 1/4" hex nuts to apple trees.

Thanks for the homework assignment Dad. :confused: As others have pointed out merely looking at total pages is meaningless as that includes advice, setting fluff, playbooks, bestriaries, gear and spell lists, introductory adventures and more.

And I somehow doubt that you're one to keep up on modern games so what difference does it make if you've heard of them or not?

Ben Robbins Microscope is in the suggested reading of the 5e PHB and is about as 'open' as a game can be. The reason I mentioned Microscope in particular is because I think that Robbins approach to laying out game rules has become influencial, you can see it distinctly in Ten Candles, a horror game that has been discussed extensively recently on this forum in the Mechanics for Horror Games thread.

As to PbtA game rules page counts, word counts would be more useful as they use significantly larger fonts and layouts than other RPGs, but I'm hardly going to start doing word-by-word counts for you. A quick look tells me that Masks has seven pages of rules if you don’t include Moves, Urban Shadows has 46 pages if you include Moves. But some of these pages have 500 words or less. There are lots of free or beta versions of PbtA games out there, check them out if you care, if you don't, don't.

Quote from: AsenRG;1010725Most games, if you remove the setting, examples of using the rules, and the advice, would come well under 32 pages.

Metamorphosis Alpha, which I cited includes the setting, rules, advice and examples of play in its 32 pages.

PbtA?

"Punch Balls till Atrophied"

It's simple. Players who are there to exploit the game rules are not there to actually play. They are there to waste other people's time. It's best to remove them and continue on with the players who are actually there to actually play.

Quote from: Voros;1010893Thanks for the homework assignment Dad. :confused:

Since you brought up the point I thought you had already done the work so no homework would be required. Well actually I thought you were just argumentatively blustering.

QuoteAnd I somehow doubt that you're one to keep up on modern games so what difference does it make if you've heard of them or not?

The point is whether or not these are corner case versions of an RPG or something most folks would recognize as an RPG.

QuoteBen Robbins Microscope is in the suggested reading of the 5e PHB and is about as 'open' as a game can be.

QuoteWant to explore an epic history of your own creation, hundreds or thousands of years long, all in an afternoon? That's Microscope. (http://www.lamemage.com/microscope/)

Microscope (why not macroscope?) does not sound like the sort of RPG where you might or even could play an actual human being as part of a campaign that lasts for more than an afternoon, like say 30+ sessions of play.

QuoteTen Candles is a masterful storytelling game by Stephen Dewey. The basic premise of the game remains the same every time you play: The sun and stars went out. They came. You and a handful of other survivors are clinging to flickering sources of light and trying to find a safe haven. But the mechanics of the game vary the identity, nature, and goals They possess, and this can be combined with an almost endless variety of starting conditions (which the book amply demonstrates by including twenty-five radically different modules) to create something unique and special every time you play. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/38589/roleplaying-games/review-ten-candles)

Another game that does not sound suitable for playing one or more characters as part of a campaign that lasts much longer than an afternoon.

Your examples from a length of play (and a scope of play) perspective sound similar to a game of Monopoly, Clue/Cludo, Risk, the old Civilization boardgame, or an old Avalon Hill, SPI, or Steve Jackson microgame boardgame. All of which have fairly short rules because that's all they need and that's all they allow you to play. And as a result several have rules that are way shorter than 32 pages. They can be that short because their scope of play is narrow - even if you may be playing the cultural rise and fall of the Greeks or Egyptians over a millennium or three.

Quote from: Headless;1010925PbtA?

Powered by the Apocalypse, or in other words, using the engine presented in Apocalypse World:).

In other news, I finally met a gamer today who actually believes systems are something that you use to beat the DM, and that you play against him. Unsurprisingly, he plays and runs Pathfinder and 5e, which maybe explains his outlook;).

Quote from: jeff37923;1009814I solved the problem of that one by making the player role-play how his character was charming the target. He couldn't do it since his typical approach was to say to a NPC, "hey motherfucker, give me your stuff" and then roll dice. Most people who are capable of coming up with an "invincible" build like that can't role-play worth a shit because they are so focused on rules mastery.

In my experience that's how every gamer who sings the praises of social mechanics behaves.

Play a lot using social mechanics, do you?

Quote from: Bren;1010434Kind of wondering that myself. I haven't noticed any move to short or terse rule books in this century. What are all these modern rule books that are only a few dozen pages in length?

Art is one culprit. Alot of games pagecount is doubled, or more, due to art. Which also usually doubles the games price.

Another problem is the designers demanding to be payed per word, rather than completed game. And so the page count gets bloated. The infamous entry for... a box... in D20m GW.

Other times its just that some games have more DM aids in the form of tables and pointers. Or more player aids in the form of lifepaths, name tables, whatever.

Rules light games tend to be very bare bones and require the GM to do alot of the work. 5e for example left out random encounter tables and left that to the DM to make custom to the situation.

And finally. Because designers soon learn that rules light means endless, endlesssssssssssssss player questions and Q&A sessions to the point that you end up with more pages anyhow. Sometimes to curb rules lawyers and loopholes. Or even because during playtest a player suggested adding something to make getting into the game easier. Personal example. Theres a chargen walkthrough example character in my book because a player asked for it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1011662In my experience that's how every gamer who sings the praises of social mechanics behaves.

Then your experience is limited.

Quote from: Omega;10116945e for example left out random encounter tables and left that to the DM to make custom to the situation.

5e seems to have left out the very concept of wandering monsters and random encounter tables.  One of my players, who is a 5e player, seemed quite surprised at the existance of random encounters, and told me they don't exist in 5e.  The more I hear about that game, the less it sounds like my cup of tea. And I did look at the free quickstart. It shares a name with my D&D...

Quote from: DavetheLost;10121295e seems to have left out the very concept of wandering monsters and random encounter tables.  

Page 85 D&D 5th edition Dungeon Masters Guide.

What they didn't do is provide pages of pre made tables. They give one and devote fives pages to how you can build them.

The recently released Xanathar's Guide to Everything they have a whole section of pre-made random encounter tables.

And just about every adventure had them like on Page 7 of Hoard of the Dragon Queen. Whoever you were talking too was ignorant of the rules of 5e.

Just passing on what my player told me.  Given the player, I wouldn't be surprised if the information was inaccurate.

Quote from: DavetheLost;10121295e seems to have left out the very concept of wandering monsters and random encounter tables.  One of my players, who is a 5e player, seemed quite surprised at the existance of random encounters, and told me they don't exist in 5e.  The more I hear about that game, the less it sounds like my cup of tea. And I did look at the free quickstart. It shares a name with my D&D...

You and your player example are wrong.

The DMG has a section on random encounter tables and even gives examples of them. But it places the job in the DMs hands and explains the idea of encounter tables that should be custom made for the adventure or area rather than generic one-size-fits-all tables.

It was a good idea really.

Customized random encounter tables is a very good idea. If you are deep in the caves of the goblin king I would expect to encounter goblins not skeletons.

Happy to corrected on this point.

Goblin skeletons sound OK.

Quote from: estar;1012139Page 85 D&D 5th edition Dungeon Masters Guide.

What they didn't do is provide pages of pre made tables. They give one and devote fives pages to how you can build them.

Mearls & Crew really underestimated how lazy I am. I was disappointed. I've been using 1e tables up until this time.

When old editions leave something for the ref they are "incomplete" or "badly written."

When new editions leave something for the ref they are "advanced" and "imaginative."

Quote from: Omega;1012262You and your player example are wrong.

The DMG has a section on random encounter tables and even gives examples of them. But it places the job in the DMs hands and explains the idea of encounter tables that should be custom made for the adventure or area rather than generic one-size-fits-all tables.

It was a good idea really.

Xanathar's Guide to Everything has random monster tables for those too lazy to make them yourself.

Quote from: Bren;1012286Goblin skeletons sound OK.

good idea but I do think undead skeletons could/would also include their previous victims, and/or previous owners of their place

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012403When old editions leave something for the ref they are "incomplete" or "badly written."

When new editions leave something for the ref they are "advanced" and "imaginative."

I'm sorry to interrupt the pity party, but who are these people calling the absence of encounter tables in the 5e DMG "advanced" and "imaginative?"

If I bust CB's chops on this, I gotta be fair, y'know.

Quote from: Bren;1012286Goblin skeletons sound OK.

Wrong, GOBLIN SKELETONS sounds AWESOME!

Quote from: Dumarest;1012507Wrong, GOBLIN SKELETONS sounds AWESOME!

meh, just wait until the main enemy in a campaign is a necromancer fey and its horde of undead pixies/brownies :)

I GM-ed that, the players were freaked out by the tiny beasts, were almost unable to hit the basic swarming skeletal enemies without magic targeting aid

Quote from: AsenRG;1012113Then your experience is limited.

Well, we knew that based on his seemingly endless proclamations about every this and every that. Plus this is a guy who rates Tombstone and Fear and Loathing as greatest Western and novel of all time, so clearly he has extremely limited horizons outside the field of pipe tobacco.

Quote from: joriandrake;1012508meh, just wait until the main enemy in a campaign is a necromancer fey and its horde of undead pixies/brownies :)

I GM-ed that, the players were freaked out by the tiny beasts, were almost unable to hit the basic swarming skeletal enemies without magic targeting aid

That would also be awesome but can fairies be made undead?

Quote from: Dumarest;1012511That would also be awesome but can fairies be made undead?

That depends on GM and setting. My niece recently 'grew up' (is 14) and began to like darker stories, so I ponder the possibility of giving her a campaign in what is basically a dark Pixie Hollow with few survivors barricaded away. I remember how as little kid she loved that stuff from Disney.

I personally think if a fey, angelic being, or god can be corrupted or turned undead in a setting it has a high chance of also being possible with fairies. (although their abilities might be gone or replaced) Especially in D&D system they are dangerous as hell without proper preparations and countermeasures due to the size bonus they get. If you want a more classic setup the main enemy could be a banshee or as mentioned a necromancer fairy, otherwise the cause could be whatever from a corrupted well (connected to a demonic rift), cursed item (perhaps the fairy king's throne?), or whatever dark things live in a nearby "Evil/Dark Forest" (the classic fairytale nearby dark place which is taboo for fairies), or just mix these with things like old hags and trolls.


In fact, building a whole setting based on corrupted fairy tales (including classics and disney ones) could be a fun place to have campaigns in, just make it sure not to drift too much into Ravenloft flavor.

Quote from: Dumarest;1012511That would also be awesome but can fairies be made undead?

Anything can be made undead under the GM's power.

Quote from: Dumarest;1012511That would also be awesome but can fairies be made undead?

I don't know, but they can become cannibalistic murderous hordes (http://www.kenzerco.com/index.php?cPath=34_63).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012403When old editions leave something for the ref they are "incomplete" or "badly written."

When new editions leave something for the ref they are "advanced" and "imaginative."

heh-heh. Baugh and co tried to pull that with d20m Gamma World. It flew about as far as youd expect it to.

Quote from: Omega;1012534heh-heh. Baugh and co tried to pull that with d20m Gamma World. It flew about as far as youd expect it to.

I missed that edition. From what I have heard it was even less well recieved by GW fandom than the 4e D&D based set.

Quote from: joriandrake;1012508meh, just wait until the main enemy in a campaign is a necromancer fey and its horde of undead pixies/brownies

I'm seeing fluttering little skeletal wings. In my mind it all looks very Guillermo del Toro in Hell Boy II.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012403When old editions leave something for the ref they are "incomplete" or "badly written."

When new editions leave something for the ref they are "advanced" and "imaginative."

Really, it's

The game left something to the GMs imagination and I don't like this instance, the game is "incomplete" or "badly written."

and

The game left something to the GM's imagination, cool! The game is "advanced" or "imaginative"

Quote from: Bren;1012553I'm seeing fluttering little skeletal wings. In my mind it all looks very Guillermo del Toro in Hell Boy II.

Don't fairies usually have insectoid wings? They might ride skeletal birds or bats tho.

Yes usually. Something like the toothfairies in HB2 is what I had in mind.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/hellboy/images/8/84/ToothFairy.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080713044725)

The wings look kind of tattered or skeletal. I guess it also looks more like a leaf than an insect wing.

Quote from: Bren;1013046Yes usually. Something like the toothfairies in HB2 is what I had in mind.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/hellboy/images/8/84/ToothFairy.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080713044725)

The wings look kind of tattered or skeletal. I guess it also looks more like a leaf than an insect wing.

oooh yes, I watched HB2 once but totally forgot about these things

Quote from: Bren;1013046Yes usually. Something like the toothfairies in HB2 is what I had in mind.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/hellboy/images/8/84/ToothFairy.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080713044725)

The wings look kind of tattered or skeletal. I guess it also looks more like a leaf than an insect wing.

That thing is creepy AF! Now I have to use it in a game. Also I have to watch HB2.

HB2 was mostly shot in Hungary btw. Not that it matters much due to CGI and such.

Quote from: Bren;1011668Play a lot using social mechanics, do you?

In my experience its how I've seen a lot of players who are new at my table and received the wrong kind or rpg-education expecting social mechanics to work that way.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1013659In my experience its how I've seen a lot of players who are new at my table and received the wrong kind or rpg-education expecting social mechanics to work that way.

How do you re-educate them?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013681How do you re-educate them?

See the thread with the rules for drowning.

Quote from: Voros;1012438Xanathar's Guide to Everything has random monster tables for those too lazy to make them yourself.

I don't want to be creative. That's why I have money.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013681How do you re-educate them?

"It doesn't work that way at my table. Social mechanics are not just a die roll. You will have to think about what your character says and how. The die roll will cover over some lack of eloquence on your own part, but you're going to have to actually come up with the meat of your argument."

Then it is just insistence/enforcement ("yes, that is the way it's going to be." "No. We're going to try this." "If you want to GM, feel free") and then trial and error.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013681How do you re-educate them?

I just always ask the player "how do you try to convince them" and remind them that I give bonuses for good or amusing plans. After 3-4 sessions, they usually get the idea and even embrace the role-playing aspect. This is how my players created Cave Catering.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1013698I don't want to be creative. That's why I have money.

Or I spend my creativity elsewhere. (Or I'm bad at A and good at B, so I want a book to help with A.) ;-)

Quote from: bryce0lynch;1008125Someone shows up at your OP game with a character that is infinitely powerful. They found a rule loophole, and it seems legal.
What would you do?

....

Well don't think I've ever run a game system that is that broken, and now days have my own home system so not possible.   Seems legal?  Well if it is the game system is clearly broken.  I'd have the player walk me through exactly, step by detailed step how they go to this character.  If legal note the exploit and fix it and/or build an NPC with it, then you decide if this character fits in the power level at your table.  

In my experience, back when experienced these things, in every case the player with the uber build cheated and/or ignored certain of the rules.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1008239Let's get more specific.

Let's say you're playing D&D 3.5. A player creates a 1st level Psychic Warrior. For purposes of this scenario, let's say that you've decided to allow psionics in your campaign, but that you have the power to adjudicate any ambiguities in the rules.

Now, this psychic warrior has taken the Call Weaponry power at 1st level. Here is the power's rules:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/callWeaponry.htm

How do you rule in the following situations?
1. The psychic warrior calls an elvencraft longbow (from Races of the Wild) to their hand.
2. The psychic warrior calls a splash weapon, such as a flask of holy water, to their hand.
3. The psychic warrior calls an improvised weapon, such as a lantern, to their hand.
4. The psychic warrior calls a siege weapon, such as a ballista, to their hand.
5. The psychic warrior calls a monk's unarmed strike to their hand.

First what a poorly written power open to abuse and way over powered for 1st Level.  This is easily addressed by the definition of "weapon" and "kind."

1.  Elvencraft longbow is too specific, the kind of weapon you get is a bow.
2.  "Splash weapon" is a game term, but would allow to call an oil flask to ones hand, probably holy water.  Either way a reasonable and not over powered request.
3.  Again improvised weapon is a game term, not even a weapon.  I would only count as a weapon those objects specifically designed to cause violent harm.
4.  I like Gronan's take; let it appear and crush them.  More likely I'd define weapon to mean handheld weapon, so one sized no larger than a lance.
5.  That is not a weapon but an ability.

Quote from: Skarg;1009076It seems to me clearly false that all games can be read/interpreted properly to have rules loopholes that make a basic character invincible.

Well he didn't say read properly.   :) There is always someone out there with a poor grasp of context and grammar who will try to misread rules to their advantage.

Yes, which is broken reading, not broken games. :)

Quote from: Skarg;1013935Yes, which is broken reading, not broken games. :)

Yeah the fact that you, the player, can't read doesn't mean that I, the GM, have a system that needs fixing. (Generic "you".)

If you're the GM, and you go with the reading that is most likely to ruin the game, you deserve what happens.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1008239Let's get more specific.

Let's say you're playing D&D 3.5. A player creates a 1st level Psychic Warrior. For purposes of this scenario, let's say that you've decided to allow psionics in your campaign, but that you have the power to adjudicate any ambiguities in the rules.

Now, this psychic warrior has taken the Call Weaponry power at 1st level. Here is the power's rules:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/callWeaponry.htm

How do you rule in the following situations?
1. The psychic warrior calls an elvencraft longbow (from Races of the Wild) to their hand.
2. The psychic warrior calls a splash weapon, such as a flask of holy water, to their hand.
3. The psychic warrior calls an improvised weapon, such as a lantern, to their hand.
4. The psychic warrior calls a siege weapon, such as a ballista, to their hand.
5. The psychic warrior calls a monk's unarmed strike to their hand.

I see that I am a bit more free than some others here.

1. Sure thing.  It is valid in the game.  Still follows the rest of the rules tied to the power.
2. I'd allow it, but not with 3d6 ammo.  You get the one splash weapon.  Honestly, kind of a cool use of the power.
3. Same as # 2.  Except even more cool.
4. Nope.  I'd read it as something they need to be able to carry/hold.
5. Nope, that one makes no sense.  Not calling an item, that is calling an ability.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013681How do you re-educate them?

More delicately than you might think. First of all, I don't usually run systems with social mechanics. So that obstacle is out of the way. Then I require that they describe/explain just what they are trying to do with their social interactions, getting them to have to actually think about it rather than saying "i roll diplomacy". And if possible, get them to where they're actually just roleplaying said interactions, but it is also acceptable for someone who is not a great speaker to do a combination of conversation and description.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012403When old editions leave something for the ref they are "incomplete" or "badly written."

When new editions leave something for the ref they are "advanced" and "imaginative."

Why exactly!

Old edition text, rules and description was "advanced" and "imaginative"

New edition text, rules and description is "incomplete" and "badly written"

:)


There is a lot of conceit and fan worship in both new and old, less so context and objectivity.

Personally, for me, a lot of touted new game systems are badly written, with incomplete rules and inadequate concepts to fill in the gaps.  Not very excusable given the authors are not starting from scratch, and have 40 years of RPG history and experience to draw from.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013681How do you re-educate them?

My own answer is similar to previous.  I ask players what they are seeking to achieve, and how they wish to approach convincing the NPC.   I'll then give the player a bit of a critique as there character would know it.   It that a good or bad idea with this NPC, etc.  Typically this gets into a back-n-forth question and answer which can readily evolve into role playing it out with the NPC.   All that modifies whatever rolls need to be made.