I really hate whenever I try to explain how some bad rules can be abused and immediatelly get someone say shit like “If this happens in your group, change it” as if that would solve the problem. And whenever it is not soemthing you witnessed personally, then it means it never happens and could never happen.
Are the 5e apologists in the room with us?
No, but seriously, most people I know (rightfully) criticize 5e for a lot of things, from sloppy writing in general, to shitty adventure books, to nonsensical rulings and poor balance. I’ve never met someone willing to defend 5e so passionately.
I’ve always claimed that base 5e is basically unplayable past tier 2 because of how wild power scaling becomes, and how sloppy certain rules are (God forbid that your wizard doesn’t attempt to Shapeshift the Fighter’s Echo before you even reach tier 3). And frankly, base 5e is too boring to play for long, anyway. Homebrew is where it’s at.
Check the other comments. They are absolutely in the room with us.
Oddly enough, they don’t defend it by saying it’s good. They defend it by tearing down everything else, or brushing the flaws under the carpet with “well, you can just ignore the bad stuff, so they don’t count.”
This has a lot of “stop enjoying that!” energy.
There’s no set of rules that a clever person can’t exploit or circumvent in some way, and min/maxers have been a plague on the RPG community since long before 5e. Frankly, if this sort of thing is a regular issue for you then the problem is the people you’re playing with. A good DM can roll with players like this and balance them.
Also the toxicity that is implied to exist by this post is pretty rare really. Even back when I was using Reddit, toxicity generally sank to the bottom of comment sections, and even more so here. When I got into D&D close to the beginning of 5e, some online voices on YouTube for example carried this toxicity but nowadays, most voices are far newer and friendly.
In general, most people are more interested in what happens at their table instead of all tables, and the rules are just guidelines to aid that.
I wouldn’t say it implies a toxic fanbase at all. It clearly states that’s the MO of an apologist. It further states that someone chimes in with that MO. Not a horde, not a group, an individual.
And I agree wholeheartedly. They are a minority. A very annoying, very vocal, minority.
The amount of cope is staggering sometimes and makes me disengage from discussing the hobby altogether.
Even your comment has some cope mechanism embedded:
The rules are just guidelines
As if nobody knew that. The guidelines are shit at some points, that’s the whole discussion.
There’s a thing in D&D forum spaces called the Oberoni Fallacy. The fallacy goes that, if someone says there’s a problem with a D&D rule, they’re wrong because they can just Rule 0 it away. It’s a fallacy because they have just proposed a solution to what apparently isn’t a problem.
People constantly saying “the rules are just guidelines” to any D&D problem is the same sort of idea. Yeah, I know you can ignore them, but I paid for the damn book, so I want what’s IN the book to actually matter.
Right, OK, yes, so what? the red box is where reasonable people arrive mentally.
Not really. You’re placing blame on players using a system as written and a DM for being unable to handle an exploit in the rules. At no point do you open the rules themselves up for criticism. In fact, you deflect all criticism away from the rules, as if the impossibility of a perfect system excuses every bad decision ever made.
Just like how there is no ruleset that cannot be exploited, there is no ruleset that cannot be improved. It’s only by acknowledging the flaws that something can improve, but you seem hellbent on dismissing flaws entirely. That’s unhealthy.
This has a lot of “I’ve only played D&D” energy. I am fascinated to hear your examples of exploits in VtM, or CoC, or even PF2e. Exploits and rules abuse have always been issues in D&D, which is just one of the reasons there are so many systems that aren’t D&D. Plenty of rules can’t be exploited, regardless of how intelligent you are - being clever isn’t a magic spell that just lets you unravel rules to be remade in your image.
It’s legit not hard to make an OP/powerful character in either VtM or CoC, assuming youre talking about making a character good at combat (which is usually what people talk about in this context with power gaming). I don’t play PF2e, though, so i cant speak there.
CoC take high dex, put 90+ in handguns, take the pulp talents rapid fire and quick draw, wear a bandolier of guns, and dual wield pistols that you fire 6 shots from per turn. If you dont care about going first, then fast load if you care about reloading, if not, then just take shadow and start combat hidden for two attacks with a bonus die at the start.
For VtM its easy as take fist of caine and lightning strike. If you aren’t playing as elders, this requires gaining some exp first. I know there’s other combos that i cant think of off hand that are pretty potent too.
Each of these do have counters in the form of monsters immune to guns (CoC), or celerity 5 opponents (VtM), but thats no different than a DM in D&D always throwing fireballs at the guy with high AC. It begins to be apparent when its happening all the time that the GM/DM/Keeper/whatever is specifically targeting your weakness.
Minmaxxing isn’t really the same as rules exploits - you can do those things to become really good at combat, but you’re sacrificing your abilities in other areas, which make up a significant part of the game. It’s not like hiding behind a tower shield to disappear or undead warlocks short resting to stack death ward, where you’re actively taking advantage of wording and rules interactions to achieve unintended effects.
For VtM its easy as take fist of caine and lightning strike.
Yeah you ripped someone’s heart out in 3 seconds because your fast and strong, cool now you’re covered in blood and a walking Masquerade breach becaise you punched through someone’s ribcage The cops are on their way, second inquisition are listening in on radios, the Prince is disappointed that an elder is this careless and the sheriff is going to laugh at you as you’re turning to dust because disciplines can only do so much before you fall into torpor because you’re out of blood points/at max hunger.
It’s a story telling framework encouraging creative problem solving and creation, all rules can and will be exploited, all rules are “bad” rules. Do what works for you and your group.
This argument just dismisses all criticism of the rules and implies that the “game” portion of the role-playing game is irrelevant. By that logic, the design of D&D 5e (and every single rule and mechanic in it) is no better or worse than any other game, including stuff like F.A.T.A.L.
If the rules don’t matter, why bother? Why buy books, learn a whole system, and go through the effort of trying to use a specific RPG instead of just doing free form role-play?
If they do matter, then they can and will impact the quality of your experience in positive and negative ways. They can be well designed, easy to understand, and effective at serving their purpose, or they can be poorly designed, incomplete, confusing or nonfunctional.
Sure, you can ignore rules when you don’t want to follow them, and you can do your own thing and homebrew it if you like. You can also ignore the ending of a book and write your own headcanon, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t any point in criticizing bad writing.
To put this another way, why have rule books and a character sheet with all those numbers on it? Why not just flip a coin whenever you want uncertainty about an outcome? Would a game with only that mechanic be just as effective as D&D at providing the type of experience that D&D is trying to create? If not, then why not? What makes the big complicated mess of rules that is D&D better than my single rule RPG?
This argument just dismisses all criticism of the rules and implies that the “game” portion of the role-playing game is irrelevant.
If you truly think that, then I contend that you didn’t understand their argument.
They are dismissing one specific criticism of the rules; that they can be “abused”.
Roleplaying games are a collaborative social activity. The goal should be to collectively tell an enjoyable story. Under those circumstances, no one should have any incentive to abuse the rules or their fellow players.
In other words, criticising the rules because they can be abused is like criticising the design of a hammer because it can potentially be used as a weapon. There is basically no way to design a functional, effective hammer that does not open up the possibility that a bad actor could use it as a weapon. That does not constitute a flaw in the design of the hammer, and trying to redesign the hammer to prevent such an abuse will result in a very bad hammer.
There are bad rules and good rules, but good rules are good because they facilitate enjoyable play effectively. In other words good rules should help the GM and the players do the things that are fun. The rules do not exist to create a perfectly balanced showdown between equally matched opponents, and they cannot ever exist to do that in a context where you have a GM/DM, because the overwhelming power afforded to someone with near total narrative authority makes it impossible to ever balance that dynamic. Rather, the rules exist to a) introduce an element of chaos to the narrative, and b) guide the game towards outcomes that tend to reflect the individual capabilities and circumstances of the characters involved.
And within that context there are plenty of examples of good and bad rules design. You can absolutely find, make, or customize a better hammer. But if your criticism comes down to “You could hurt someone with this if you wanted to” then you have absolutely missed the point.
There is no set of game rules that will ever prevent a toxic table from being toxic. Despite OP’s objections, the only solution to shitty people in your gaming group is to either remove the shitty people, or remove yourself. I get how much that sucks, but it really is the only solution.
I just want you to know how much I appreciate your hammer comparison. That is an incredibly apt simile and I want you to get credit for it. You should feel good about your analysis and communication skills.
This is a bad take. It would work if D&D 5e were the only rules in existence, but it isn’t even the only version of D&D in the conversation, pretty alone the wife breadth of other systems out there. I’ve been singing Pathfinder 2e’s praises for nearly 2 years now, and if the problem with PF is that it’s too crunchy, there are numerous other much lighter systems out there like Dungeon World or 13th Age.
By all means, use 5e if it works for you, but that shouldn’t stop criticism of it in places where the rules can be exploited, especially if other systems lack those exploits.
But it is useful for someone to make rules that are balanced and lead to interesting gameplay. There are entire companies that make their business around printing rule books and selling them to people who think it’s worth the money.
Think of it like this: if you have a high enough GM skill, then you’ll pass whatever check God has and make the game fun. But with more balanced and interesting rules, you get a bonus. Even if it’s just a +1 bonus that makes your game 5% more likely to be fun, that means everyone who plays that system gets that bonus from one person making it. You’d be crazy not to do it.
Different things work for different groups. But some things tend to work well in general, and others do not.
Every edition of every ttrpg has had rules that can be exploited and abused, and the solution has always been for groups to alter rules as necessary. It’s impossible to make an airtight ruleset. You are just a 5e hater.
Considering I’ve been running 5e since the Plague Year, I wouldn’t call myself a hater. I did notice, however, this very pattern whenever I voice concerns about anything with the rules - first people assume whatever flaw or exploit I point out, has been used in my group and then their solution is always to leave the group or kick someone out of it, and if it didn’t happen in my group, then it means it doesn’t ever happen. It’s a catch-22 debating with these people.
My hypothesis is that a lot of people are emotionally invested in DND, and if you say bad things about it then it feels like you’re saying bad things about them. Saying it didn’t happen or it was the players fault let’s them still feel good about DND.
We’re all susceptible to this.
For some reason DND fans seem less likely to just go “yeah it’s kind of garbage but I like it”
It’s impossible to make it perfect, but it’s trivial to make it better. For example, get rid of Silvery Barbs.
And we’d really hope with a large corporation behind it, they could do more than get rid of the obvious. They could do the playtesting necessary to properly balance martials vs casters.
That’s just one spell in an optional sourcebook that’s just an MTG cash-in, though. I’ve never been in a campaign that allowed players to use content from non-core books with abandon.
It’s a sourcebook they charged money for. They couldn’t have bothered to do basic playtesting to earn that money?
And there’s plenty more where that came from. Between a Shadow and a Tarrasque, one can safely be beaten by a low-level party, and the other is a threat to the whole world. The CRs reflect that, except they’re backwards.
In fairness, caught early, Shadows wouldn’t need a level 20 party to stop them. But they’re still above CR. And with the Tarrasque, all they had to do was leave in the anti-cheese measures they already had. And steal all the immunities from Pathfinder.
Speaking of CR, that was a bad way of doing things. Sure it’s convenient if you have a party of four players fighting a monster, but if you have to figure out how to recalculate it based on different party sizes, you may as well just use level to begin with and then figure out what level would challenge your players. Then it would work just as well on enemies with class levels. And it would mean Polymorph could be at least somewhat close to being balanced. As it is, a single spell can turn one party member into a monster capable of challenging for characters of that level, and then when defeated, they still just turn back.
every ttrpg has had rules that can be exploited and abused
That’s true for games in the tradition of D&D/F20/Trad, but not all ttrpgs. Fewer rules, a tighter scope and more elegant design make it much easier to rule out the kind of bad interactions or edge cases that lead to rules that run counter to the game’s purpose.
My Life with Master, Fiasco and Fall of Magic are all games i’ve played, where exploitation or abuse of rules is just not possible.
Unbound is a tactical combat rpg without any room for abuse of rules.
John Harper’s rules-lite DW hack World of Dungeons is probably too elegant for abuse to be possible.
That’s the first few that I can think of, but i’m sure there are plenty more.
my Lasers & Feelings officer is absolutely unbeatable when it comes to lasers. he does suffer a bit when it comes to feelings though
I get annoyed when people say things like “big deal, just do xyz yourself, why are you complaining?” . Because making a clear and comprehensive game is WOTC’s job they are being paid for with our money!
If the system has a flaw, it’s their job to fix it, if they don’t they’re doing a bad job.
That being said, 5.5e has been pretty cleaned up in this aspect. I’m honestly shocked at how they both added new fun systems and codified a lot of vague mechanics.
