What is a broken RPG?

[starblaze]

Hello all,

I have been thinking about some remarks I recently heard concerning various game system for RPG's being called broken. Most of these seemed to be pointed towards such games as RIFTS, AD&D and some others. I was wondering if you members could try and define what constitutes a broken system.

Any takers?

[SkyKnight]

A system is broken if attempting to follow the rules in at least a casual fashion negates the fun of role playing.

Examples of broken rules abound. I'm sure some other posters will list many. The simplest answer is simply that the game mechanics impair the ability to have fun.

[Killer Shrike]

Real quick and heavily IMO:

Broken games systems are systems with little or no balancing of power between character options. This is generally refered to as "Game Balance"

Broken game systems are systems that have so many loopholes and/or mismatched arbitrary rules that the system is easy to manipulate or take advantage of in making unstoppable characters. Again, Game Balance, but via a different means.

Broken game systems are systems wherein the rule fail to make any kind of sense or are significantly flawed by some design decision(s), which makes playing the game as written unpalatable or illogical.

Broken game systems are systems that are limited in thier usefullness, which are so rigid they defy customization, or so arbitrary and chaotic that its impossible to get a "common sense" mastery of the game -- you have to read each rule carefully each time something comes up because the rules dont share a common theme or follow the same meta-rules.

There are more, but I dont have time to list them. Sadly, its much easier to design a broken system than a really good system. The problem of course is that broken is in the eye of the beholder, any system can be raped by power mongering players or made a travesty of by a poor GM. So, its mostly just a matter of opinion and personal preference. :D

Frex, I think the Paladium system is broken, in all its forms. Ive played RIFTS (when it first was released), TMNT, Ninja's & Superspies, and was preparred to play in an actual Palladium fantasy game back in High School which fell thru at the very last second after much preperation by all involved when the guy that was going to GM's father got layed off and they moved back north. I had some fun playing various Palladium system games, but my fun was outweighed by my frustration with the complete arbitrariness and total lack of power balancing inherent in the system and the materials provided. Great ideas, horrible execution IMO. But thats just my opinion. Many people really enjoy RIFTS and other Palladium games.

{shrugs} Its all a matter of opinion really. There are very few systems where the overwhelming majority all agree that they are not just bad or uninteresting, they are outright broken.

[buzz]

Originally posted by starblaze
I was wondering if you members could try and define what constitutes a broken system.

Any system that you don't like. :)

Honestly, this is the most common use of the term that I've seen. If somebody doesn't like a game or has some issue with a system, they deem it "broken."

To me, a system that is genuinely "broken" would be a system or a mechanic that simply does not do what it's supposed to do. The only example I can think of (and this is second-hand knowledge) is the dice mechanic from 1st ed. Vampire, in which, iirc, the better you were at something the *more likely* you were to botch. This, of course, makes absolutely no sense, ergo, I'd consider it broken.

The truly "broken" systems are few and far between, imho. The term is more of a fanboy insult. Sure, there may be plenty of systems that are poorly-designed or unbalanced, but that, to me, doesn't make them "broken." It just makes them "not good." :)

[Derek Hiemforth]

I'll take a variant of what SkyKnight said...

A given rule is broken when it doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to accomplish, when it utterly fails the common sense test, or when its complexity is extremely out of whack with its importance.

An example of failing to accomplish to goal would be the 4th Edition HERO System rule on buying altered racial characteristic maxima. The goal (presumably) was to make (say) the average dwarf hardier than the average human, to make an extremely hardy dwarf cheaper to build than an extremely hardy human, or both. It actually did neither. Raising the dwarf's CON max to 23 still left their base CON at 10, and (since you have to pay for the increased maxima in addition to paying for the CON itself), a dwarf with a 23 CON actually cost exactly the same as a human with a 23 CON. And if you were a dwarf and didn't buy at least a 23 CON, then you paid points for something you didn't use.

An example of failing the common sense test would be the 2nd Ed. AD&D rules for leaping. The only rule in the system governing how far characters could jump without magical aid was the Jumping non-weapon proficiency. (Which I guess meant that if your character didn't have the proficiency, he couldn't leap?) The Jumping proficiency allowed you to leap 2d6+your level in feet, assuming you made the proficiency check (which was based on STR). Let's take two thieves. One is 1st level, 18 years old, with a 17 STR and a 17 DEX. The other is 20th level, 95 years old, with a 6 STR and a 6 DEX. The young buck with the 17 STR will make his check almost all the time, but when he makes it, will leap an average of only 8 feet. The old geezer with the 6 STR will rarely make his check, but when he does make it, this 95 year old soars an amazing 27 feet on average.

An example of failing the complexity/importance test would be if a game's only rule for combat was "Each character rolls 1d6. The character with the higher roll kills the other." Or if its rule for the crucial task of horse grooming required a d1000 roll and a six-page chart. ;)

An entire game system could be deemed "broken" when it either has some critically broken rules for which there is no easy fix, or when it has so many lesser broken rules that working around them all either becomes tiresome, or changes the game so much that you might as well not be said to be playing that system.

Anyway, there's my .02. :)

[MisterVimes]

Anything found in Murphy's Rules (http://www.gamespy.com/comics/kovalic/Murphys/Murphys.html) :D :D :D

[Blue]

I would consider a system broke if...
Rules contradict each other
There are insufficient rules to cover major, commonly performed actions
The Eratta of blown figures, calculations, and charts is so big it's easier to just publish a newer edition.
You must adopt a NASA scientist into the group in order to interpret the language used in the book.

[JohnTaber]

Great posts guys. Very nice. :D I don't have to say anything...you guys got it well in hand...

[Evil Steve]

One that I would add to these would be any system who provides skills, but no means to use them. For example, Talislanta (in one edition) had rules for the Riding skill, but provided no rules for the mounts themselves.

Any lack of critical information that is central to the concept. Most of these games died out in the late 80's when any monkey with a typewriter and $50 could run off an RPG.

Oh yeah, forgot some. Rules that create frustration rather than balance. Traveller 1st ed: A character could die during...brace yourself...character creation. When making characters, you would take Terms of Service in the military to gain skills. If you rolled badly, you died during that term and had to start over. Why not just have the character forceably retired from the Forces without the skill boosts. Never understood that one.

Systems that lack a process of advancement that is player and activity centered. Both Traveller 1st ed and Morrow Project 1st ed had this flaw.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Evil Steve
One that I would add to these would be any system who provides skills, but no means to use them. For example, Talislanta (in one edition) had rules for the Riding skill, but provided no rules for the mounts themselves. An excellent example of this would be many of the Class Skills in TSR's Buck Rogers RPG. If they had provided circumstances when half those skills would be useful it might not have died such a grisly death.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Evil Steve
Systems that lack a process of advancement that is player and activity centered. Both Traveller 1st ed and Morrow Project 1st ed had this flaw. I think this is more a flaw from the perspective of gaming style preference rather than something innately broken. But it brings up a good point, which is: from the viewpoint of the person considering a given system, any mechanic that too greatly contradicts their own tastes makes that system "broken" for them.

For example, I really dislike random attribute generation. I find no advantage in it in any way. So to me, a game system that uses random attribute generation is "broken," because I wouldn't play it. :)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by buzz
The only example I can think of (and this is second-hand knowledge) is the dice mechanic from 1st ed. Vampire, in which, iirc, the better you were at something the *more likely* you were to botch.

Not precisely: the better you were at something the more severe your botches could be, but they were less likely to happen.

Not much better, and I would consider the majority (if not the whole) of the Storyteller line to be broken, but it isn't quite *that* broken.

It is, however, broken for these reasons (which are also some of my answers to the original question, though I'll try to avoid too much duplication of other posts):

1. Lethality:Complexity Ratio. If building the character is time consuming and not fun of itself, then a system that also can kill that character in an instant without careful GMing is not my cup of tea.

2. Different systems in the same game, unless they mesh well. The World of Darkness series and, to a lesser extent, GURPS have this problem: completely new rules for each of what we might call "special effect". Nothing wrong with that as long as they are never in the same game or are well balanced, but neither of these is necessarily the case in those systems.

That's all I can think of that hasn't been said (and I'm not even sure, then, it's late).

[Jhamin]

My primary criteria for a broken system is that is has some character choices that are signifigently better than other choices for no particularly good reason, or that might cause you to make a character that is overly powerful in comparison to others without setting out to do that.

RIFTS gets brought up a lot because it's classes don't seem to have any standard they can be measured by and characters are blatantly mismatched in power levels.

When the two different players can make characters by the book without any power gaming, and character A can kill character B in 2-3 shots, but Character B needs 28-35 shots to kill character A, then something is broken in this system.
(If you think I exaggerate, try putting a 1st level Glitter Boy against a 1st level SAMAS Pilot some time, don’t even think about how long a wilderness scout or scientist will last in this world)

[buzz]

Originally posted by Jhamin
My primary criteria for a broken system is that is has some character choices that are signifigently better than other choices for no particularly good reason, or that might cause you to make a character that is overly powerful in comparison to others without setting out to do that.

Some would argue that this isn't broken, it's just unbalanced. E.g., elves are far superior to every other race in Decipher's LOTR rpg, but many fans of the game seem to like this, as it accurately reflects the source material.

Granted, the overall fan reaction to LOTR seems to be pretty mixed.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Jhamin

When the two different players can make characters by the book without any power gaming, and character A can kill character B in 2-3 shots, but Character B needs 28-35 shots to kill character A, then something is broken in this system.

I will observe that this example seems to ignore potential non-combat abilities. I would consider it a fine example for a wargame but not for an RPG myself.

[Tom Carman]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
An example of failing the complexity/importance test would be if a game's only rule for combat was "Each character rolls 1d6. The character with the higher roll kills the other." Or if its rule for the crucial task of horse grooming required a d1000 roll and a six-page chart. ;)
Ah yes, the famous Deity Combat system: roll a d6; that's the number of pieces you are in.

[Evil Steve]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
I think this is more a flaw from the perspective of gaming style preference rather than something innately broken. :)

Actually, in the case of Morrow Project, the character advancement consisted of increasing certain stats by an amount every 3 months for the first year to represent more exercise. Combat and survival skills were the same. Thus ends character advancement.

I agree that 'broken' may mean 'dislike', but in this case, something was actually missing.

[Mark Taylor]

Originally posted by Evil Steve
Oh yeah, forgot some. Rules that create frustration rather than balance. Traveller 1st ed: A character could die during...brace yourself...character creation. When making characters, you would take Terms of Service in the military to gain skills. If you rolled badly, you died during that term and had to start over. Why not just have the character forceably retired from the Forces without the skill boosts. Never understood that one.

In GURPS Traveller, Loren Wiseman suggests that players who miss this rule can simply roll 1d6, and on a roll of 1 or 2, tear up their character sheets and start again. Although he was on the original Traveller design team, I'm guessing from the sarcastic tone of his suggestion that he didn't approve of 'that rule' in the first place.

[Mark Taylor]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
For example, I really dislike random attribute generation. I find no advantage in it in any way. So to me, a game system that uses random attribute generation is "broken," because I wouldn't play it. :)

I despise random attribute generation too. In the case of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, I liked the rest of the game enough to devise a purchase based system of character generation for it. I got rid of the random roll for magic points when a magic user goes up a level too. As GM, the only random element I kept in character creation was the die roll for Fate Points. I kinda liked the idea that these were left up to the roll of the die.

I also hated the die roll for hit points increase when you level up in AD&D. Nothing can ruin a good fighter easier than having the ill fortune to roll a 1 every damn time. :p

[buzz]

Originally posted by Realms of Chaos
I also hated the die roll for hit points increase when you level up in AD&D. Nothing can ruin a good fighter easier than having the ill fortune to roll a 1 every damn time. :p

Thankfully, 3e introduced a variant where you can simply opt to take the average for your particular hit die, i.e., fighters get 5hp a level. One of my curret DMs allows you to take the average if you roll exceptionally low, as well.

FWIW, have no problem with a certain amount of randomness in chargen and would not consider any system that uses it to be broken. Sometimes dealing with the luck of the dice can make for interesting characters. The closer a game gets to Traveller-esque levels of randomness (or even Hackmaster for that matter), though, the less I'm interested.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by buzz
One of my curret DMs allows you to take the average if you roll exceptionally low, as well.And this points out my exact problem with most random character generation systems. Almost no one uses them randomly! And for good reason... you don't want your character to get screwed over. But as soon as you mess with the randomness, you're warping the game mechanics in ways you may not anticipate.

For example, if fighters roll 1d10 for HP each level, they'll get an average of 5. If you use the official alternate method, they just get 5 per level. But as soon as you monkey with the random method, it's skewed. Let's say that if you roll a 1 or a 2 on a d10, you can take the average instead. Well, now the average value is no longer 5 (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10/10)... now it's 6 (5+5+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10/10).

Besides, from a philosophical standpoint, what's the point of using random methods at all if you're going to immediately turn around and tweak them because they don't allow you to build the characters you want without tweaking them? Why not just use a method that allows you build the character you want in the first place? :)

[buzz]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
But as soon as you monkey with the random method, it's skewed. Let's say that if you roll a 1 or a 2 on a d10, you can take the average instead. Well, now the average value is no longer 5 (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10/10)... now it's 6 (5+5+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10/10).
But this skewing doesn't really matter. The system is built with the assumption that it is *possible* for a player to roll max hit points for their PC every level. Ergo, it's not really unbalancing. Not to mention, if the DM is being just as generous with her NPCs, the PCs aren't really at any sort of advantage. It just becomes a feel good thing. :)


Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
Besides, from a philosophical standpoint, what's the point of using random methods at all if you're going to immediately turn around and tweak them because they don't allow you to build the characters you want without tweaking them? Why not just use a method that allows you build the character you want in the first place? :)
I suppose this is true. Probably why the designers provide the two methods as "either/or" and not "both". I'm just telling you how my DM does it.

Besides, who says the combined method *doesn't* give players the PC they want. Obviously (given that the DM in question programs CPUs with assembler for a living, so is probably aware of the math involved), my DM wants PCs to have a higher average, but with some wiggle room.

And given how often we've been level-drained and near death, it certianly hasn't provided us with any sort of advantage. :)

And let's not forget those people who enjoy the possibility of rolling 1s, seeing it as part of the "game" aspect.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
Besides, from a philosophical standpoint, what's the point of using random methods at all if you're going to immediately turn around and tweak them because they don't allow you to build the characters you want without tweaking them? Why not just use a method that allows you build the character you want in the first place? :)

I can sort of see it. Sometimes the character you want is not the one you should have. Sometimes a randomized character can get you to play something new you wouldn't have thought of.

And sometimes it turns out to be a disaster, and you have to step back away from it for a bit in order to fix things.

[buzz]

Originally posted by GamePhil
I can sort of see it. Sometimes the character you want is not the one you should have. Sometimes a randomized character can get you to play something new you wouldn't have thought of.

See, this is what I'd *wanted* to say. :)

Buzz, who thoroughly enjoyed rolling on the random power tables in V&V.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by buzz
See, this is what I'd *wanted* to say. :)

Buzz, who thoroughly enjoyed rolling on the random power tables in V&V.

Actually, every time I rolled up a V&V character, or a character in a similar system, I would end up with a highly intelligent character who's mind was his greatest weapon, though the details varied. Which is pretty much what I normally play.

Character with superhuman intellect and Cosmic Awareness twice. This was actually my favorite.

Character with superhuman intellect and light powers.

Character with superhuman intellect and dimensional movement, along with a couple of gadgets if I'm remembering it right.

Character with superhuman intellect and magic...

So it goes :)

[Mark Taylor]

Originally posted by buzz
FWIW, have no problem with a certain amount of randomness in chargen and would not consider any system that uses it to be broken.

I don't consider it broken either. I just don't like it. Creating a character is one of the major areas in a traditional RPG where the *players*, not just the GM, have an opportunity for a real measure of creative input. Taking some of that creative potential away and handing it to the dice always seemed like a strange thing to do, to me. But as has been said before, it's a matter of taste - it's understandable that many players might prefer the challenge of playing an unexpected character over the creativity of creating one to their specifications, though I find that the most creative players still create challenging characters even when the process has no random elements.

FWIW, I can't think of any system off hand I would consider outright 'broken'. Even if I'm not having fun myself, I know other people with different tastes will have fun with it. On the other hand, I can only think of two game systems (out of at least a dozen) I have actually GMed with the rules as written, with no modification. So to me, it is par for the course that RPGs need modification and house rules to function the way you want them to.

[bushido11]

As far as randomly determining a character's "anything" during character creation (except perhaps starting cash), it's not my cup of tea. My GM gives me the excuse of "some characters are just naturally better than others." So just because I roll crappy dice rolls, I get screwed out of PC generation? I don't think so. Most of my friends prefer to roll up stats rather than using a pool of points. Why? Because they want an excuse to get high scores, that's why. "Roll 4d6 8 times, get the best 6, reroll ones, and the option to reroll doubles." Come on now. What does that tell you? That tells me that the average roll will probably be at least 14. They just want high ability scores, that's all. For that, just give them the points. Another reason they like to roll for stats is because they're too lazy to arrange scores for characters, and because they always feel that they don't have enough points for what they want (which is uber-characters, but they won't admit that). Here's the kicker (get ready for this): if they roll a natural 24, they get to keep it (we're talking about 3e D&D here folks). A 24! That is f***ing insane in my book! That gives them a +7 bonus to just about anything related to that task due to ability alone, and at 1st level I might add! That'll lead them to probably fighting hard monsters who'll kill them with one attack or provide no challenge at all with weaker characters. And don't even think about telling them to have low Charisma, because they have to be beautiful. They don't even play heroic characters; they play self-interested mercenary type characters who are cowardly scoundrels who'll drivel over some super-powered DMPC, not NPC (Dungeon Master's Player Character). With the intro of the DMPC comes the DMPC being the main character in the story, and the NPCs just kissing his arse (although they would never admit it). I'm sorry, but I will not kiss the DMPC's arse, and I will not GM or DM characters with high charisma and intelligence scores that act like ill-mannered bullying idiots.

Randomized PC creation only gives them an excuse to abuse the system and be ok with it in their conscience because "Hey, that's what I rolled." With point-based PC creation I, as the GM, can more closely monitor and control a character's capabilities and power. Randomized character "anything" isn't broken, but it's not an effective game balance barometer either.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by bushido11
Randomized character "anything" isn't broken, but it's not an effective game balance barometer either. The fact that it isn't an effective game balance barometer is why I do think random generation is broken. After all, balance is presumably its main purpose, is it not? Theoretically, some stats will be high and others will be low, but they'll eventually average out and everything will be balanced. Since random methods don't accomplish that, I consider them to fail at meeting their objective, therefore I think they're broken. :)

[Pteryx]

Eesh, bushido11... is getting a new group an option?

Anyway, the main things that make for a broken RPG in my opinion that I feel are worth mentioning are mechanics that don't model reality, genre, or dramatic sense. (Note that the genre and dramatic sense categories often overlap.) If it hits one, then the game may be good for some kind of RP... though possibly not the kind it was purportedly made for. -- Pteryx

[bushido11]

To Pteryx:

That group is my main group of friends, and I don't make it a point to hang around with "acquaintances", if you know what I mean. I tried RPing with another group, but after the second adventure, we just didn't get together. I don't know why; they never told me. But yes, a lot of times, I either wish I had another actual group to play with (that could actually meet one day of the week in at least 2-week intervals) or mind-control them to see my point of view. :D I only wish. Another thing I wish is for at least one other person in the group who is as knowledgeable in an RPG as I am, that isn't D&D (and even in D&D, I'm the most knowledgeable one). When explaining rules for another game, they'll be like "this is too hard" or "that's whack, B" (yeah, we throw in some street lingo, but what they hey?) I'm just venting out my frustrations here. Gotta do it somewhere, you know? Maybe we can also add "broken players" along with this "broken system" post, huh? ;)

[buzz]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
Theoretically, some stats will be high and others will be low, but they'll eventually average out and everything will be balanced. Since random methods don't accomplish that, I consider them to fail at meeting their objective, therefore I think they're broken. :)

Theoretically, any set of scores generated randomly could also be bought on a point-buy system... well, depending on the point-buy system in question.

I think there are good an bad random systems, just as there are good and bad point-buy systems. The proof is in the pudding, as it were.

[CrosshairCollie]

Actually ... there is the option for a point buy stat system, official, in D&D 3rd. I've decided to do that, standard, though I give more points than they do.

[CorpCommander]

This past year and a half I got back into roleplaying. I bought all the D20 books I could (about 15 of them or so) and got into a campaign being run by a really great GM. While the campaign was fun I slowly learned to hate the system. Here are ways in which it was broken for me:

1. Poor organization of the rules. Case in point, every 4th level you get to increase an attribute point. This is a pretty major thing. Its in there but I missed it after many re-readings of the PHB. There were many other things like that - being unable to find all the rules is a major issue. In many ways the beautiful presentation got in the way of actually reading the rules for understanding.

2. The system is based upon lists not synthesis. They've defined for you what a fighter is, what a magic user is, etc. You are given lists to pick and chose things from. The problem is that it begins to all taste like chicken. Oppose this to Hero where you start with attributes and a formless void of points to which you must specify some form of character. You create your character and balanced or unbalenced that is what you are left with. Between choosing between a system that is dictatorial and limited or one that is freewheeling and open I will take the latter over the former.

3. Math. yes, I said it. There is elegance in bell curves. There is elegance in logarithmic progression. AD&D is extrmely linear by its dependence on the D20 - its trademark tool and icon! Anyone here who'se take a few strong math courses knows what I am talking about I think.

4. Everyone is doing it. Everything under the sun has been converted to D20. Its become this great beast. At first I thought it was a good idea - just learn one way of doing something and with so many choices how can you go wrong? The problem is that D20 is not a pleasure to play in my opinion. Hero does the same thing in a much better way.

[buzz]

So now this is a d20-bashing thread?

See ya. :(

[CorpCommander]

Originally posted by buzz
So now this is a d20-bashing thread?

No, not really. D20 is the easiest to make an example out of though and the one system I've had the most recent experience with. One could go on about the first edtion of Twilight:2000, for example, but since so few here have had experience with it would it be as powerful an illustration?

Hero got bashed here a lot too. I think it's been even handed. I gladly made the switch back to Hero after dealing with D20 long enough. Actually the points I make could be applied in many cases to other systems.

If you want to talk about a system that had many, many holes in but I still loved then look at Warhammer Fantasy RPG. For all that was wrong with that system, it was one of the most fun I've ever played. Where else can you make a profession out of rat catching??? :D

[buzz]

Originally posted by CorpCommander
D20 is the easiest to make an example out of though and the one system I've had the most recent experience with.
My beef is that you're using "broken" to mean "a system I don't like." The examples you cite are pretty much all personal preference. To me, that's not really "broken."

[Rene]

Well, lots of people already said what I would say. And they probably said it better.

I agree that random generation isn't broken in itself, but IMO it sucks. I'm one of those players who likes to custom-create my character. Random generation in superhero RPGs is the worst sin of all, and will make a game useless for me. They're good for improvised one-shot games though.

Imbalanced classes, clans, etc. not sure this is broken neither. Sometimes it just tries to reflect source material faithfuly. See, AD&D was imbalanced as hell (i.e. mages were wimps, clerics were gods), but there IS a certain subgenre of fantasy where magician apprentices are the weakest members of the party in the beginning, but by the end (if they survive) they're the most powerful, while the warrior-kinds have a more linear growth.

Still don't like this in a game, though. :) Specially if you get to play the sissy soon-to-die mage.

Rules that don't do what they were intended to do (or do it poorly), now that is broken. You know, when you read the flavor text or the source material, but you try to apply the rules to it, and weirdness ensue.

GURPS Supers and Aberrant are throughly broken, IMO. The way those games deal with damage is horrible. You either die after one shot or you're not even scratched by your enemy. It's very hard to have a dramatic fight.

Aberrant had lots of this stuff. For instance, you had "Taint" (I'm not very fond of the concept, it was the mandatory "descent into corruption" you have in all WW games). In the flavor text, in the setting, Taint was such a big deal, every superbeing was afraid of Taint.

But the thing is, as the rules were written, it was next to impossible to get Taint in the game. You had to, like, push your power ten times and get a critical miss in all those ten times to get 1 point of Taint or something. It would never happen even if you tried deliberately to get Taint.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by buzz
I think there are good and bad random systems, just as there are good and bad point-buy systems.Can you offer a couple of examples of random systems you think are good? (I'm not being argumentative or sarcastic... I'm genuinely curious to check them out. :) )

[buzz]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
Can you offer a couple of examples of random systems you think are good?
Well, honestly, I thik the default d20 method (4d6 drop the lowest, repeat six times, arrange to taste, start over if your total modifiers add up to zero or less) works just fine. Generally, I see people end up with sets that mirror the assignment method, i.e., 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Sometimes people end up on the low side, sometimes they end up with above-above-average, but over all, I don't see anyone way over or underpowered on a regular basis. Basicaly, I see nothing "broken" with this.

The old Dragonquest rpg had you roll on table to see how many points you got to divvy up between stats. The balancing factor was that if you rolled a low point total, you were allowed to push stats as high as you wanted, whereas if you rolled a big point total, you were limited in how hgh any given stat could be. Ergo, PCs with low totals tended to rawk at a handful of stats, while high-total PCs would be pretty darn good at a lot of stats. I always kind of liked that.

OTOH, the old methods from AD&D1e (or Hackmaster) just stink. You either have to roll character after character to get one that didn't suck, or you use these mehtods that create uber-stats and totally defeat the purpose of random generation, just like you were saying.

I dunno. I just have no particular preference either way, as long as it's a good game. :)

[Blue]

Originally posted by CorpCommander
4. Everyone is doing it. Everything under the sun has been converted to D20. Its become this great beast. At first I thought it was a good idea - just learn one way of doing something and with so many choices how can you go wrong? The problem is that D20 is not a pleasure to play in my opinion. Hero does the same thing in a much better way.

Yeh, a universal game has an appeal in that you learn it once and everyone knows it. Problem is that D20 should not have been THAT system.

And random systems have a weird appeal for me (outside Traveller and your chance to be stillborn). I love a challenge! My favorite for this was V&V. I had a blast trying to make the character's random rolls of Stretching, techno Powered Armor, Mystic Weapon that fires Power-Blast, intangibility, and a high Charisma work together. But anyone else I played with always rolled their eyes when they got these kinds of characters. No imagination, I swear :D

[Lupus]

Originally posted by Blue
Yeh, a universal game has an appeal in that you learn it once and everyone knows it. Problem is that D20 should not have been THAT system. Of course, it had to be that system, because really only Wizards had the resources to license their system for free.

I'll defend D&D and d20 to my grave, because I think it's a really funky system that managed to shed just about everything I didn't like about AD&D. A neat change. However, I feel it's only a good system (as I said earlier) for a specific genre and style of play. That is, heroic (and ultimately superheroic) high fantasy; where people don't die in one hit, they're capable of amazing feats, they interact with amazing things on a daily basis and regularly do the impossible.

However, if you step outside that genre and style of play, you end up with a sub-standard system. It's no good for a gritty one-hit-and-you're-dead system. The hit point mechanic is fine, but just doesn't work for all games. It's also no good for a low-heroic game. You want HERO or something else for that. In D&D, you gain levels - quantum leaps in power - every few sessions, rather than gaining little advances every session. Myself, I love seeing my characters improve. I don't like going more than a few sessions without gaining a level. However, I'm happy with only a few CPs each session in HERO. And, since levels are such big increases, you end up getting to superheroic levels faster than you do in HERO.

Basically, if you want low-heroic, go HERO. If you want high-heroic, choose D&D or TORG, depending on exactly what you want to focus on. That's all my opinion, anyway.

But d20 is not a good generic system, by any stretch of the imagination. (Well, unless you take 'generic' to mean 'of a particular genre.')

[CorpCommander]

Originally posted by buzz
My beef is that you're using "broken" to mean "a system I don't like."

And since you asked a subjective question a subjective answer is rational and appropriate. It is a broken system from my perspective.

Sorry you have a beef with my answer but I stand by it. I spent a lot of money on D20 and I gave it 18 months before I decided to shed the whole thing. I am really glad I did too, especially since I was able to convert 6 other people to Hero.

I know you like the system judging by your comments and there isn't anything wrong about that. It's the most popular system in the world afterall. There are hundreds of supplements, adventures and thousands of dedicated fan sites. It fuels a huge gaming economy.

If you were just looking for "broken" rules (i.e ones that should be realistic but aren't) then look at Hero and calculate from how high you can drop a baby without a reasonable fear of killing it. Its been done before and I think its up around 2 stories!

[buzz]

Originally posted by CorpCommander
And since you asked a subjective question a subjective answer is rational and appropriate. It is a broken system from my perspective.
I didn't ask anything; I am not the person who started this thread.


Sorry you have a beef with my answer but I stand by it. I spent a lot of money on D20 and I gave it 18 months before I decided to shed the whole thing. I am really glad I did too, especially since I was able to convert 6 other people to Hero.
Right. I'm just saying, this isn't a "why I decided to dump d20" thread (lord knows there are enough of them). It's a thread asking what constitutes a "broken" rpg. d20 is not "broken" by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of whether it is to everyone's taste.

Back on track (influenced by what you said about HERO), I'm not sure if a Murphy's-Rules-type hole in an RPG system is necessarily evidence of being "broken", either. A lot of those wonky bits are a consequence of various asbtractions and assumptions RPGs make when emulating their world or genre. A good example might be how wacky D&D's economics are; academically, it often doesn't make sense, but in play, it never seems to mess anything up.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by bushido11
As far as randomly determining a character's "anything" during character creation (except perhaps starting cash), it's not my cup of tea. My GM gives me the excuse of "some characters are just naturally better than others." So just because I roll crappy dice rolls, I get screwed out of PC generation? I don't think so. Most of my friends prefer to roll up stats rather than using a pool of points. Why? Because they want an excuse to get high scores, that's why. "Roll 4d6 8 times, get the best 6, reroll ones, and the option to reroll doubles." Come on now. What does that tell you? That tells me that the average roll will probably be at least 14. They just want high ability scores, that's all. For that, just give them the points. Another reason they like to roll for stats is because they're too lazy to arrange scores for characters, and because they always feel that they don't have enough points for what they want (which is uber-characters, but they won't admit that). Here's the kicker (get ready for this): if they roll a natural 24, they get to keep it (we're talking about 3e D&D here folks). A 24! That is f***ing insane in my book! That gives them a +7 bonus to just about anything related to that task due to ability alone, and at 1st level I might add! That'll lead them to probably fighting hard monsters who'll kill them with one attack or provide no challenge at all with weaker characters. And don't even think about telling them to have low Charisma, because they have to be beautiful. They don't even play heroic characters; they play self-interested mercenary type characters who are cowardly scoundrels who'll drivel over some super-powered DMPC, not NPC (Dungeon Master's Player Character). With the intro of the DMPC comes the DMPC being the main character in the story, and the NPCs just kissing his arse (although they would never admit it). I'm sorry, but I will not kiss the DMPC's arse, and I will not GM or DM characters with high charisma and intelligence scores that act like ill-mannered bullying idiots.

Randomized PC creation only gives them an excuse to abuse the system and be ok with it in their conscience because "Hey, that's what I rolled." With point-based PC creation I, as the GM, can more closely monitor and control a character's capabilities and power. Randomized character "anything" isn't broken, but it's not an effective game balance barometer either.

Hope this gets read, since the thread seems to have stopped, but...

I like random methods for most games, if only because you don't end up with everyone having the same stats (as I've seen before, and from the posts know that it is a problem with HERO too). Of course, I started with a players handbook and a box set with books titled "men & magic", "monsters & treasure" and "the underworld & wilderness adventure", so it (and many others) form a large part of my background.

There's a lot that can be said about 3 (and 3.5e) being "broken" or open to abuse, but where was it said that you could keep all 4 6s - unless its an error in a first printing I have never seen that anywhere in the rules. I sold my 3 when I got 3.5, so I can't check until I game later this month, but that sounds way too fishy to me. I would appreciate it if you can give me a reference on that (if you know it).

As far as using that to justify player abuses is also a little broken (no offense meant here, please) - I've had players make characters who were combat hogs in all systems. Your other comments sound like a DM/GM problem and not a system problem though. Now if you related the player attitudes to the older (and still to a large degree 3/3.5) focus on XP gained through combat, to me that is kinda broken - they give XP for traps or challenges defeated, but it's still pretty bad (at least they stopped giving XP for gold). Star Wars (d20) goes a bit beyond that by giving XP for adventures, but then combat there is a little deadlier.

Look at Rolemaster - I personally like the system, but try gaming with a group of 9 people (at that time - it's since gone down)! We could do one combat per session of 4-5 hours! And XP there is really odd - the only one who got XP was the one that killed a creature, leading to many cases of point-whoring and stealing kills.

I do agree that random characteristics can be unbalancing (although to be fair I've never heard it claimed that it was), but I watched all character creation rolls and approved all characters, so I had only myself to blame if someone was overbalanced. Most characters ended up pretty average, with just one or 2 stats with a 16+. Point based systems just ensure that characters start with the same points, not that they'll be balanced or

But yeah, to me broken is mostly personal taste, but I think a few games or rules are pretty much universal in "broken-ness". Didn't mean to single ya' out, just curious on that one point mainly.

I do like the "broken player" or "broken DM" thread idea - how about the player who has to kill the other players?

[Mordacius]

Hope this gets read, since the thread seems to have stopped, but...
Likewise. But hey, if you post it, they will read, right?

To me, a game is broken if it doesn't play well as written. If I need to introduce a lot of house rules to keep the action flowing, or get it flowing the way I want, that's a break.

Frex:
D&D 3E has extremely stable core rules. I've run D&D from levels 1 to 32, and the basic mechanics of the system (DC checks, etc.), are well balanced. It's just important to understand that D&D is not a deathmatch game - the classes aren't balanced to fight each other, they're meant to cooperate.

HERO is absolute bedrock. I forget the last time I changed something in the core rules, except for genre considerations.

On the other hand:
D&D splatbooks are often terrible. I had to throw out about half of Defenders of the Faith at a glance, for instance. I thought a lot of the stuff in there was a joke of some sort.

GURPS is terrible. House rules in our GURPS campaigns would become horrendously complicated, and take hours to hash our sometimes.

*shrugs*
So, that's my take. .

[tesuji]

"3. Math. yes, I said it. There is elegance in bell curves. There is elegance in logarithmic progression. AD&D is extrmely linear by its dependence on the D20 - its trademark tool and icon! Anyone here who'se take a few strong math courses knows what I am talking about I think."

I have taken a few hard math courses and i think one of us sure doesn't know what you are taliking about.

A bell curve is not elegant and gets firmly in the way of systejm results.

Why?

1. The bell curve myth is that it flattens out results. That is wrong. 3d6 = d216. it produces 216 equally possible results. A d20 produces 20 equally possible results.

The difference is "what groups does the system map these results into?"

In a bell curve system, like hero, the results are grouped away from the task into unevenly allocated pools. 27 resuklts from the d216 are grouped into the result assinged to 11 for instance. Now maybe 11 for this roll means success or maybe it means failure for that one but regardless it boils down to 27 chances out of 216.

The "bell curve" of smoother results or more predictable results simply comes from the system deciding that more of the 216 results apply to this event (success say) or that less of them apply to that event.

If i want a roughly 60% chance of success... then in 3d6 i assign 11- for 62.5. In d20, if i want the same EXPECTATION, i simply assign 12- for 60% on the dot.

Its the mapping of result on the die to success fail that determines how predictable the results are, not the size of the die (d20 or d216) after you get beyond only a few sides on the die.

I prefer d20 for two reasons...

1. I don't think RPG guesstimates need to or can reasonably benefit from looking down to and incorporating factors down to the .5 of a % chance. i don't think i ever want my players to be trying to determine whether their estimate of occurance is accurate down to the .5% range. Thats what d216 does. I think roughly 5% or maybe even 10% is the best i can use in play in detail to assess adjustment to chances and expectations. Attempting to assess things down to the .5% scale is getting way to far down into minutia for my tastes.

2. The 3d6 method skews the impact of modifiers. When i assign a +1 or -2 circumstance adjustment, i have no clue how much that will affect the result. If the task is really easy or really difficult BASED ON not just the task but the intersection of task and attempter, then +1 or -2 is pretty irrelevent. if the task happens to fall into a median level of difficulty, the these modifiers matter a lot (-2 could be up to additional 54 chances of success on d216 or it could be much much lower.) This won't follow any reasonable pattern like "less skill means they matter more" or "more skill means he is better able to use better tools" or anything like that... its pretty much formed by the intersection of task and user and not by predictable results.

I like knwing what my circumstantial +2 does... knowing that it will provide this much increase in chance of success and thats what a even distribution d20 gives me.

if you think your game benefits from having its possibilities parsed into d216 or .5% sets, then by all means the d216 is great. if you like having your modifiers, skill bonuses and such provide basically random levels of bonus for the same cost/value scailing from 1 in 216 to 27 in 216 for a single +1, then the unevenly distributed d216 map is for you.

But if you want "more preditable results" then all you have to do is assess the DCs in a flat D20 to make your results as predictable as you wish.

Ok, my dice rant is done.

enjoy your games, whether its d20 or d216.

[buzz]

Originally posted by tesuji
1. The bell curve myth is that it flattens out results. That is wrong. 3d6 = d216. it produces 216 equally possible results. A d20 produces 20 equally possible results.

The difference is "what groups does the system map these results into?"
Given that, to my knowledge, there's not a single system that assigns those 216 results to anything other than the range of integers between 3 and 18 inclusive, I'm not sure what your point is here. The systems that use additive dice methods like this do so *because* of the curve; they generally don't create the curve themselves.

(Though I have seen linear systems that create a curve by arranging results tables around certain groupings of die results, e.g., Unisystem. Apparently, lots of designers seem to be fond of curves, so I'm assuming there's some value to them.)


1. I don't think RPG guesstimates need to or can reasonably benefit from looking down to and incorporating factors down to the .5 of a % chance
I don't think the systems using curved die mechanics care much about such minutiae either. The increments between the results in a 3d6 spread, when you're looking to roll a target number or under/over, which is the typical case, aren't increments of .5%. The difference between rolling a 10- versus an 11- is something like 12%. At the extreme ends of the curve, you start to get into 1-2% territory.

The real point being, games that use these curves are usually doing so becuase they want to incorporate an average die roll, not that they want to make use of .5% situational modifiers.


2. The 3d6 method skews the impact of modifiers. When i assign a +1 or -2 circumstance adjustment, i have no clue how much that will affect the result.

This is true, and it's one of the advantages of a linear distribution. It also means that linear systems tend to scale well.

However, I have heard the argument that this skewing of modifiers is "realistic" in that, if you're exceptionally good or exceptionally bad at something, situational modifiers *shouldn't* really make much of difference. It's when your chances are 50/50 that they really matter. E.g., I know nothing about watch repair, and no matter how nice the tools are that I have (a la, "masterwork watch tools"), my chances of fixing a watch are pretty much nill. Likewise, the quality of Michael Jordan's shoes isn't going to make a huge difference in his game; he's going to take you to school regardless. :)

So, the curved die methods supposedly reflect this.

Now, I don't think there's really a huge difference. Any good game designer is going to make whatever method they pick reflect the reality or genre they're trying to depict in their game. The mechanics will take the linearity or "curveyness" of the dice into consideration. I.e., d20 and Unisystem "know" that their die mechanic is flat, and HERO and GURPS "know" that their die mechanic is curved. Either die mechanic can suck rocks if the system doesn't make use of it properly.

And THAT would possibly make a game "broken." The choice of one curve over another, however, woulnd't, imo.

Buzz, lover of all polyhedrals.

[tesuji]

I have never really heard anyone defend the "adjustments should be worth more when its 50/50" before. Amazing.

At least you tried.

In my reality, if i have no skill at watchmaking and have no chance then the tools wont matter either. In this case, in game systems, its a case of watch making being a REQUIRED skill and not allowing a roll at all, regardless of tools. if someone tried to tell me this was built in and i was supposed to be allowed to roll but the die pool of results was designed so that the adjustments were smaller, i would laugh outloud.

Do you honestly allow watchmaker rolls in your games for people with no skills to allow the die pool to reflect the lesser value of circumstantial modifiers? Or do you simply tell you guy greedily clutching his 3d6 that he gets no roll because he hasn't got the necessary skill?

I mean, maybe i have been ding hero wrong all these years and i should have been allowing these rolls so that the dice pool slicer that trims down bad tools, or is it called improper tools on the skill chart, and this is an intended result?

maybe.

But somehow, i doubt it.

In my reality... given a poorly trained watchmaker, a moderately trained watchmaker, and a highly skilled watchmaker... the presence of good, bad or moderate tools would have similar impacts on performance at a gioven task, not vastly disproportionate. i could even buy the argument that there should be disproportionate effects, with the notion being the better skilled guy gets more out of the tools and materials than the lesser skilled guy and so the better things are the better he can get.

I would never in my wildest of dreams have envisioned it as depending on the relative intersection...

in my experience, in the reality i know and love... it is more typical that the more skilled and experienced you become, the better care and precision with which you keep and maintain your tools and the better tools you seek and use. The weaker newcomer has the worst tools typically. This would seem to make "proper tols" a thing MORE VALUED by the masters, not of less importance.

This experience, at least to me maybe not to everyone, does not match up with a system result which makes it more likely that better tools or proper tools are of less value to the more experienced guys.

YMMV and clearly does.

Well, wait... you said you have heard the argument.

Do you believe it?
Do you think thats right and that games should reflect things that way?
or is it an argument you do not agree with and were just bringing up as a distraction?

[tesuji]

"Given that, to my knowledge, there's not a single system that assigns those 216 results to anything other than the range of integers between 3 and 18 inclusive, I'm not sure what your point is here. "

Ok i will draw a map...

BELL CURVE FLATTER...Yippee!!!

Roll D216
if result is 1-135 PASS
If result = 135-216 FAIL

AKA 62.5% chance of success.
AKA roll 3d6 for 11-

Insert typical comment on bell curve "I have a more predictable skill result with 11- in 3d6 than in d20."

Except that this maps out almost exactly to...

Roll d20.
1-8 fail
9-20 succeed

60% chance of success.

If we roll this linear die vs the 3d6/d216 bell curve it is the MAPPING of PASS/FAIL to these results which sets how predictable the outcomes will be.

I can tell you to roll d216 a thousand times and it is not the fact that you are rolling d216 that will make the results more predictable, but the fact that I MAPPED more cases to this and less cases to that that will.

If i want you to have a 25% chance of success in 3d6/d216 then i assign a SUCCESS map to 8-.

If i want that same % in D20, i assign DC 16.

It is the mapping of DIE RESULTS to TASK RESULTS that determines the probabilities and the predictability and the randomness.

If when you compare a d20 system to a d216 system you compare apples (where you map to make the % match) you will find equally predictable results.

If, when you compare d20 to d216, you compare oranges (where instead of worrying about % you keep the results the same so DC 15 = 15+ in BOTH systems) you will find the bell curve makes some values MORE predictable (11- = 62.5% vs 55%) and as many or more less predicatbale (15+ = 30% in d20 and is iirc 10% in d216/3d6, or was it 5%?) In the oranges case, a lot of values would skew in terms of what they mean with a direct port.

So, it is the mapping of die result to task result that determines the predictability. The BELL CURVE is just a set of mappings that limit you to uneven distributions. There is no value there.

The downside is the case of somewhat random values for modifiers depeniding a multiple task/skill variables.

At least, it is to me.

SUMMARY: For my use, i can map either d216 or d20 to make the probabilities and predictabilities i want from my taks system. D216 is a little more cumbersome because the increments of from .5% to 12.5% per adjustment make these assignment sless fluid than i like. With d20, with even distribution, i can just easily by 5% increments and i really do not want to approximate anything less than a 5% swing... 1 in 20 is as tight as i want my abstract to go. With d20, I know what my modifiers to a task do reliably, easily, and directly. With d216 mapped to 3-18, i do not.


YMMV

[Rene]

Hey Tesuji, is there anything, anything at all that d20 isn't supremely better in than HERO? ;)

[buzz]

Originally posted by tesuji
Do you think thats right and that games should reflect things that way?
or is it an argument you do not agree with and were just bringing up as a distraction?
Distraction from what? Your original post about "d216" was already veering OT. I'm just telling you, this is an argument that I've heard, mostly from GURPS folk.

As for whether said argument is BS or not, I guess we know how you feel. It isn't totally nonsensical to me, though.


Do you honestly allow watchmaker rolls in your games for people with no skills to allow the die pool to reflect the lesser value of circumstantial modifiers?
No, and the systems I know of that used curved mechanics generally don't either. That's not what the argument I mentioned is getting at (though my watchmaker example may have confusing things a bit; it was simply an extreme example).

A better example might be this:

If you're a really lousy guitar player, various circumstantial modifiers are probably not going to make a difference when you attempt to play "Eruption" by Van Halen. A custom-made guitar, a fovorable audience, and a couple of hours to get it right probably won't really matter; you're still not talented enough to play the song. You're at the small end of the curve, in the crappy secton.

Now, Eddie himself, otoh, can whip off that tune in no problem, even on the old $78 guitar he used to tour with, while strung out on coke, and with an indifferent audience. He's so good that the incidental stuff doesn't matter. He's at the small end of the curve, in the virtuoso section.

Now, I'm a fairly "middle of the curve" player. Things like the quality of the instrument I'm playing, the reaction of the audience, and whether I'm in the right mood or not can have a huge impact on my playing. In a game sense, the modifiers affect me in a substantial way.

Okay... is this a valid argument for curved dice systems? Heck if I know. It's really just sometihng I heard once, which can basically be summed up as "life is on a bell curve, so realistic RPGs should be on one, too."

Whether this is true, or if you even buy the whole dubious "realism in gaming" thing, I dunno. What I do know is, there are a lot of game designers that are very well respected who feel that curved mechanics have merit. Ergo, I'm not going to dismiss curved systems entirely no matter how much you want to argue about it. I'm not vehemently in favor of one or the other, and I don't feel a need to start a jihad for or against either opinion.

[buzz]

Originally posted by tesuji
SUMMARY: For my use, i can map either d216 or d20 to make the probabilities and predictabilities i want from my taks system... With d20, I know what my modifiers to a task do reliably, easily, and directly. With d216 mapped to 3-18, i do not.
Okay, I understand that you needed to point out the "216 results mapped to a curve" thing to make your point. I'm just saying, the idea that a system would group those 216 results into anything other than the usual 3-18 is just... wacky.

I guess I just trust that competent game designers who choose curved or linear mechanics do so for a reason. Ergo, you have to look at the specific implementation to determine whether you think said mechanic is "broken" or not (he said, trying to veer the thread back on-topic).

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Blue
And random systems have a weird appeal for me (outside Traveller and your chance to be stillborn).

I liked Traveller's weird system, I always thought that IF you got a viable character it worked well, and you could easily mix characters of varying levels of experience out of the gate.

[Victim]

Tesuji has point. A roughly 60% percent chance is going to be a roughly 60% chance on 3d6, d20, or percentiles. The main difference is that the extreme results (nat 20 or 3) are far more likely on d20 than on 3d6.

Realistically, you could probably go both ways on who benefits most from favorable conditions. Why not just discount the "realism?" However, the floating value of modifiers in HERO does make the exact effect more difficult to determine.

As for broken systems, I don't like Aftermath. I couldn't figure out what was going on.

If Storyteller is supposed to be a narrative, relatively rules-lite system, then it's broken too.

[buzz]

Originally posted by Victim
If Storyteller is supposed to be a narrative, relatively rules-lite system, then it's broken too.
Ditto. My first experience with Storyteller was Adventure!. When I was done reading it, my reaction was "THIS is the rules-light, narrative rules system I've heard so much about?" I found it remarkably obtuse in comparison to what I was lead to believe. Forget the "d216" crap; figuring out probabilities with a dice pool is even more painful.

Not that the game isn't really cool, of course...

[tesuji]

Having started running storyteller with Vamp ed-1, i can tell you that my comment was "the problem as far as i can see with WW is that not a single one of them can count to 10 with shoes off." Moreover, it was like they did not care.

i hear that later on, after dark ages maybe, they started streamlining things down with static DCs instead of variable DCS along with variable pool sizes.

Vamp was a great game, especially for its time, and did a lot of good things to the inducstry standards, but its "system" and math was never its strong points.

I think it comes in second on my "number of years running games in it" list though, a distant second behind HERO but about tied with DND. many fond memories.

Wow, a whole post an none of that "d216 crap" as the ever neutral Buzz characterized it.

[buzz]

Are you always this pugnacious with people who basically agree with you?

PLONK.

[bjbrown]

<P>I"ve played quite a few games (<I>D&D</I> (advanced and otherwise), various <I>Storyteller</I> (the live-action rules are much lighter and better than the tabletop rules), <I>Paranoia</I>, <I>Toon</I>, and of course <I>Hero System</I>), and only once have I played a game where there seemed to be a broken rules problem.</P><P>The first and only time I played <I>Twilight:2000</I> (first edition), one of the members of our platoon was surprised by an enemy, and pumped full of lead with a machine gun. Total splat fest. As this player character took an insane amount of damage, the GM couldn't figure out from the rules at what point the player character actually dies. The enemy emptied a belt of ammunition from a machine gun into the player character, and there didn't seem to be a rule for the player character dying. (NPCs death was determined from a simpler streamlined rule that wasn't meant for PCs.) The action suddenly stopped as the GM read for hours through the rulebooks looking for a death rule. We ended up abandoning the roleplaying game to go outside and go after each other with water guns and water balloons.</P><P>Some rule systems are better than others, but with the exception of the death problem with <I>Twilight:2000</I>, none of the major games that I've played have rules so bad that the games were unplayable.</P>

[Phraze]

The only really broken system I ever played was Tri-Tac's "Stalking the Night Fantastic" (the original version - I haven't seen if their new version is any better). IIRC, the combat resolution systems were completely different for hand-to-hand combat, bladed combat, thrnown weapon combat and firearms. So it was a real pain-in-the-a if some moron brought a knife to gunfight. Also, the damage resolution for bullet wounds seemed like a really neat idea at first glance, but brought the game to a dead stop in actual play (you would roll damage for the bullet, determine a hit location, subtract armor, then work your through a cross-sectional chart of the body to determine whether the bullet passed through or stopped in a major organ, bone or blood vessel).

Then again, "Land of the RIsing Sun" (which was based on "Chivalry & Sorcery"'s system, I believe) had such a convoluted chargen system that I quit before completing my first character roll-up, and never even tried to run the game itself.

[CrosshairCollie]

That reminds me of the 1st Edition Top Secret Hand-to-Hand combat system. Depending on your HTH combat skill number, you could use a variety of styles ... starting at untrained, working up to Boxing, Judo, Martial Arts, and the like. You cross-referenced Attack moves and Defense moves, and got a letter result for damage. Each style had its own chart ...

So you always used the defensive moves of the chart the attacker used. So Bruce Lee would defend on the Untrained chart if he were fighting an Untrained fighter, and the Untrained guy would suddenly know Martial Arts defenses!

[badger3k]

Originally posted by CrosshairCollie
That reminds me of the 1st Edition Top Secret Hand-to-Hand combat system. Depending on your HTH combat skill number, you could use a variety of styles ... starting at untrained, working up to Boxing, Judo, Martial Arts, and the like. You cross-referenced Attack moves and Defense moves, and got a letter result for damage. Each style had its own chart ...

So you always used the defensive moves of the chart the attacker used. So Bruce Lee would defend on the Untrained chart if he were fighting an Untrained fighter, and the Untrained guy would suddenly know Martial Arts defenses!

Ooh - yeah - forgot about that! Loved that game, in its time.

How about the FGU Chivalry and Sorcery game? The one from 77. How many people understood the magic system? Let's play a Drug Trance magician! Smoke a bowl, m'lord? That game was "broken" on so many levels...