Most Ridiculous Rules in RPGS

[Segev]

I can't perceive how this is a problem. This is WHAT HAPPENS in real life. If I'm trying to do a combo in Street Fighter, I go into training mode and I screw it up over and over again until I hit that "magic" point where I actually do it right. There's only a problem if the game then allows me to do it 100% of the time from then on, but since these sorts of systems are usually associated with skill systems, there's no "Okay, I can fireball now" but rather "Okay, I can fireball if I roll well enough."

I have seen very, very few systems which have a kind of granularity where you start off only being able to do something occasionally, and work your way up to doing it all the time. Particularly when that "something" is a special technique, spell, or other encapsulated power.

[Thrudd]

In 3.5, this is the official rule for wizards (but not divine casters, who have to prepare spells at a specific time each day). Leave a slot unfilled, spend 15 minutes later during the day to fill it:

Exactly. It is something that takes time and peace and quiet to study and prepare. Normally this is accomplished when the party is camped somewhere relatively safe, so describing it as gaining spells each day is accurate in a general sense.
In 1e, spells take 15 min per spell per spell level to prepare. You can absolutely leave your spell slots empty and prepare them later, you just need a safe place and time required. A single 3rd level spell, for instance, will need 45 minutes of peace and quiet.

[Max_Killjoy]

Exactly. It is something that takes time and peace and quiet to study and prepare. Normally this is accomplished when the party is camped somewhere relatively safe, so describing it as gaining spells each day is accurate in a general sense.
In 1e, spells take 15 min per spell per spell level to prepare. You can absolutely leave your spell slots empty and prepare them later, you just need a safe place and time required. A single 3rd level spell, for instance, will need 45 minutes of peace and quiet.

Does that mean it takes a 10th-level wizard almost 11 hours every day to prepare his spells?

[Ninjaxenomorph]

The WEG Star Wars RPG had an interesting take on improving skills; it took a certain amount of free time to boost a skill, or no time if you had used it between the last time you were awarded character points (XP). So, if your smuggler guy got into a shootout and earned CP at the end of the session, they could improve their blaster skill instantly if they had enough. If they wanted to train up their languages, though, they needed a few weeks.

[Segev]

Does that mean it takes a 10th-level wizard almost 11 hours every day to prepare his spells?

In earlier editions, wizards had to very carefully shepherd their spells, because, yes, they could not be sure of having enough time to re-fill all their spell slots while on the go.

[Frozen_Feet]

Does that mean it takes a 10th-level wizard almost 11 hours every day to prepare his spells?

Yes.

Spell preparation taking actual time was something of a balancing point, even. It effectively prevented many forms of buff stacking or "15 minute workdays".

[Jay R]

But no amount of explanation or description is going to change the fact that it's really frustrating to be the 1st level wizard who has expended all his spell slots and has nothing to do but whine at the party that this looks like a good place to camp for the night.

My experience is that anybody whining at this stage was also whining earlier, when he still had spells.

[goto124]

1. Discrete jumps are more satisfying. "haha! I just levelled so I can throw fireballs, wield the Mega Hammer, and those rats that taunted me earlier will be easy now!" is way better than "Hohoho, after a good workout today, I'm 5% stronger! As long as I don't skip leg day, by this time next year, I'll be able to carry an extra 50 pounds!"

2. Sometimes I want skills, but don't want to practice them. Either you grind it and do something mind-numbing like standing in a fire while casting heal constantly, or you spend six hours wandering the countryside looking for injured people to help. Just let me learn spend some points to learn Speak with Dead so I can solve the mystery of Jogger's Peak already. I want to do that sidequest, not a weird one where my only goal is practice.

This is my experience as well, especially point 2. In a TTRPG, you don't even get to run off and practice your skills. You're going to come across many situations where you do something that would have been helped by the very skill you get only after doing the something! That, or you deliberately create situations to practice your skills, in the midst of adventuring. "I attwmpt to climb the 100 foot wall!" "Why don't you just pick the door?" "I need to practice my Acrobatics!" "The world's ending in 2 hours!" "But what if we come across a wall in the last 20 seconds? I'm practicing now!"

It's a case when trying for realism just bogs down actual gameplay.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Yes.

Spell preparation taking actual time was something of a balancing point, even. It effectively prevented many forms of buff stacking or "15 minute workdays".

I can understand the point to balance. But at the same time, it seems like the worst way to go about things. "Your too good, you can break the game. Instead of actually fixing this problem by toning down your abilities, we'll just make it super inconvenient to actually use your abilities in play. That's fun right? Right?"

[Telok]

I can understand the point to balance. But at the same time, it seems like the worst way to go about things. "Your too good, you can break the game. Instead of actually fixing this problem by toning down your abilities, we'll just make it super inconvenient to actually use your abilities in play. That's fun right? Right?"

Nope, that wouldn't be fun. But it wasn't inconvenient, it was resource management. The latest few iterations of D&D have attempted to make magic spells usable as often as sword swings. This has resulted in cases where the spells are just sword swings or arrow shots with different descriptions, and cases where characters could only swing a sword in some way once a day or attempt a trick shot once a day.

[Anonymouswizard]

This is my experience as well, especially point 2. In a TTRPG, you don't even get to run off and practice your skills. You're going to come across many situations where you do something that would have been helped by the very skill you get only after doing the something! That, or you deliberately create situations to practice your skills, in the midst of adventuring. "I attwmpt to climb the 100 foot wall!" "Why don't you just pick the door?" "I need to practice my Acrobatics!" "The world's ending in 2 hours!" "But what if we come across a wall in the last 20 seconds? I'm practicing now!"

It's a case when trying for realism just bogs down actual gameplay.

You see, this is why we should abolish levels and just give XP that can be spent on everything. It's annoying when I need to improve my climb skill but the GM goes 'sorry, you won't level for another two weeks'.

[CharonsHelper]

I can understand the point to balance. But at the same time, it seems like the worst way to go about things. "Your You're too good, you can break the game. Instead of actually fixing this problem by toning down your abilities, we'll just make it super inconvenient to actually use your abilities in play. That's fun right? Right?"

It's not as if you have to roleplay scribing your scrolls for 11 hours anymore than the fighter needs to roleplay maintenance on their blade/armor.

But in earlier editions, a lot of playing an effective wizard was knowing when to use and when to save your spells. Different sort of gameplay. Nothing wrong with either style; just different.

[CharonsHelper]

You see, this is why we should abolish levels and just give XP that can be spent on everything. It's annoying when I need to improve my climb skill but the GM goes 'sorry, you won't level for another two weeks'.

Because it makes more sense for you to be able to concentrate really hard and suddenly get better at climbing when you need it? You should have upped it last level.

(Being able to spend EXP on anything is also basically impossible to balance, especially while maintaining asymmetry.)

[Anonymouswizard]

Because it makes more sense for you to be able to concentrate really hard and suddenly get better at climbing when you need it? You should have upped it last level.

Who said I could just concentrate really hard and suddenly get better? In the games I tend to play you generally have downtime at the end of a session, and all XP is spent between sessions. There are times when you'll end up getting better at something with no downtime, but those cases are rare. However, it makes a lot more sense for me to decide I want to get better at climbing and then (assuming I have the XP) get better at it during downtime then to have 2 weeks of downtime but be unable to gain a point in climbing because the next level is 370XP away.

(Being able to spend EXP on anything is also basically impossible to balance, especially while maintaining asymmetry.)

(Yeah, but after a certain point balance becomes less necessary, especially if not playing PVP. It's also a personal preference, but it avoids stupid stuff like 5e's stupidly unskilled characters).

[CharonsHelper]

(Yeah, but after a certain point balance becomes less necessary, especially if not playing PVP.

That depends heavily on the system's vibe. For more abstract systems, balance doesn't really matter. (While I'm not a huge fan of abstract systems - such point-buy works well for them.) For games about tactical gameplay - balance matters much more.

[Anonymouswizard]

That depends heavily on the system's vibe. For more abstract systems, balance doesn't really matter. (While I'm not a huge fan of abstract systems - such point-buy works well for them.) For games about tactical gameplay - balance matters much more.

Ah, we have a difference here, I couldn't give a **** about tactical gameplay. In my view, if everybody has something they can make use of it's balanced enough. Now a game like D&D 4e has this matter more, but in say Fate or the Mistborn Adventure Game balance is less important. Now balance in Fate does matter, I shouldn't let one character have a 'do anything' skill while other characters have to use the standard list, but as long as you avoid the major pitfalls everybody is competitive.

[Max_Killjoy]

Because it makes more sense for you to be able to concentrate really hard and suddenly get better at climbing when you need it? You should have upped it last level.

(Being able to spend EXP on anything is also basically impossible to balance, especially while maintaining asymmetry.)

Neither of these matches any experience I've ever had with actual gaming.

In fact, I've always found point-buy MORE balanced than levels, along with being more natural and less goofy.

[CharonsHelper]

Ah, we have a difference here, I couldn't give a **** about tactical gameplay. In my view, if everybody has something they can make use of it's balanced enough. Now a game like D&D 4e has this matter more, but in say Fate or the Mistborn Adventure Game balance is less important.

I don't see the difference. I already said that for abstract system balance doesn't matter as much. You're just saying that you prefer abstract systems where balance doesn't matter.

Okay - I agree. We have different taste in RPGs, but we actually seem to agree entirely that balance matters less in abstract systems and more in tactical ones.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't see the difference. I already said that for abstract system balance doesn't matter as much. You're just saying that you prefer abstract systems where balance doesn't matter.

Okay - I agree. We have different taste in RPGs, but we actually seem to agree entirely that balance matters less in abstract systems and more in tactical ones.

Kind of, I was saying that in an abstract system balance does matter, but to a much less extent. I was correcting the 'doesn't really matter', because it still matters, but only up to a point.

Sure, Fate might be fine without having rigorous playtesting for every combination, but it still requires that there be no singular best choices. Less 'is everything balanced' and more 'is anything particularly unbalanced'.

[ClintACK]

Well if the character is an idiot savant who can only cast spells and never do anything else.

Most wizards can do other stuff like round up horses, drag wounded allies out and administer potions, throw explosives or nets, rally the hirelings, make sure nothing is sneaking up behind the party, hold a shield to cover the cleric casting a heal, etc. etc.

Some wizards can even swing a staff and hit people.

Yes. A good RPer can always find *something* for their character to do. But there's really a different level of fun between being able to competently contribute to the group's success and being able to find something to say you were doing.

(And notice that each of the things you picked is something the wizard is likely to be poor at -- Animal Handling, Strength check, improvised weapons, Charisma check, and perception check. The second one of those becomes hard, a competent party member will have to take over from the wizard.)

Note: I say this as a guy who once spent several complete sessions playing the wizard who had been feebleminded, before the party found a cure. Sure. I could role-play it a bit, but it was very different.

No argument there (although there's generally at least something they can do, particularly as they tend to have good out of combat skills for most D&D editions). I'm just saying that there are setting-side justifications.

There definitely are. And I agree with them. My point is that the justifications don't help. People who are screaming about Vancian magic sucking are generally people who have experienced the problem of a mismatch of party rest needs. (Which is *not* explicitly a Vancian magic problem.)

Imagine a 5e fighter, monk, warlock, wizard party. Until they run out of hit dice, the first three are fully recovered after a half an hour of rest. They might go through an entire campaign arc without ever wanting a long rest, unless the DM starts to ding them with exhaustion rules. Only the wizard wants long rests -- and if there's even a hint of time pressure in the adventure, the rest of the party won't ever want to stop. In an adventure with ten short rests and no long rests, the fifth level warlock can cast 20 3rd level spells. The wizard can cast only 2.

Of course, 5e made this a lot better -- wizards have a number of ways to get effective armor, weapons, and skills, and cantrips can actually be real magic that the wizard can use all day long.

In 2e, a wizard who was out of spell slots had the feeblest attack, the worst armor, and the least useful skills of any member of the party. It wasn't pretty.

[CharonsHelper]

Kind of, I was saying that in an abstract system balance does matter, but to a much less extent. I was correcting the 'doesn't really matter', because it still matters, but only up to a point.

Sure, Fate might be fine without having rigorous playtesting for every combination, but it still requires that there be no singular best choices. Less 'is everything balanced' and more 'is anything particularly unbalanced'.

Fair enough. Instead of saying that balance doesn't really matter in abstract games, I should have just said that it doesn't really matter "as much".

[SimonMoon6]

But I agree, something more like the system in Elder Scrolls where you get better at a skill by practicing it feels more natural. Except even then you are gaining hit points by sitting in your room casting spells over and over and over. *sigh*

Of course the real problem is that there's no way to craft a fixed set of known rules that can't be gamed.

Well, I would say it's hard to "game" the skill-gaining rules from Call of Cthulhu (and other games published by Chaosium including Runequest, Elric, etc). In that system, your character pretty much isn't going to improve much. Your stats (except POW... and Sanity if you count that as a stat) don't change. Your skills won't change much either, but they can increase slightly. Here's how:

Every skill has a rating from 0-100. You succeed at a skill if you roll under it's rating on d100. If you succeed at a skill when it's actually relevant and useful to the adventure (rather than sitting at home rolling dice all day), then you get to put a check mark next to the skill. At the end of the adventure, you get to roll to see if you can increase the skill. This time, you have to roll *above* your skill rating (since someone who already knows how to do something well is unlikely to get better at it). If you succeed, you get to add a d6 to your skill. Otherwise, you get nothing.

It's slow and I've never seen anyone make significant gains. But it gives you a little bit of something now and then, while making sure that you don't suddenly become a completely different character.

[CharonsHelper]

It's slow and I've never seen anyone make significant gains.

Well yeah - you're lucky to survive more than 2-3 sessions without going insane! :P

[Max_Killjoy]

There definitely are. And I agree with them. My point is that the justifications don't help. People who are screaming about Vancian magic sucking are generally people who have experienced the problem of a mismatch of party rest needs. (Which is *not* explicitly a Vancian magic problem.)

Imagine a 5e fighter, monk, warlock, wizard party. Until they run out of hit dice, the first three are fully recovered after a half an hour of rest. They might go through an entire campaign arc without ever wanting a long rest, unless the DM starts to ding them with exhaustion rules. Only the wizard wants long rests -- and if there's even a hint of time pressure in the adventure, the rest of the party won't ever want to stop. In an adventure with ten short rests and no long rests, the fifth level warlock can cast 20 3rd level spells. The wizard can cast only 2.

Of course, 5e made this a lot better -- wizards have a number of ways to get effective armor, weapons, and skills, and cantrips can actually be real magic that the wizard can use all day long.

In 2e, a wizard who was out of spell slots had the feeblest attack, the worst armor, and the least useful skills of any member of the party. It wasn't pretty.

"Rest issues" is just icing on the cake when it comes to the problems with Vancian magic. Conceptually, it's nonsense, and for balance, it's a kludge.

[Thrudd]

"Rest issues" is just icing on the cake when it comes to the problems with Vancian magic. Conceptually, it's nonsense, and for balance, it's a kludge.

Which type of magic isn't "conceptually nonsense"? All magic is literally nonsense.
For balance, it works pefectly as a resource management element.

I feel that people saying it's a stupid rule are really just saying they don't like playing the kind of game it is used in. It is a fine rule for the type of game it was made for. This is not primarily a cinematic or narrative action game, nor purely a tactical battle game.

Disliking a type of game or a particular setting does not mean it is a bad game with stupid rules. A rule needs to be judged in the context of the game it's in and how it accomplishes it's goal in that game.

[MrZJunior]

Not precisely a ridiculous rule but in Traveller they make a point to inform you that Vargr, uplifted wolves, are incapable of kicking in combat. I can see the logic but it seems a bit pedantic.

[Max_Killjoy]

Which type of magic isn't "conceptually nonsense"?

The kind that doesn't require hanging one's disbelief by the neck until dead.

For balance, it works pefectly as a resource management element.

This is, of course, why we've had nearly 4 decades of issues with "linear fighters and exponential wizards" and variations on that complaint regarding multiple variations of that casting system.

I feel that people saying it's a stupid rule are really just saying they don't like playing the kind of game it is used in. It is a fine rule for the type of game it was made for. This is not primarily a cinematic or narrative action game, nor purely a tactical battle game.

If the primary issues of the game are managing "resources" via abstracted rules, and measuring win conditions numerically, and "in game avatars" are built mainly around how they function as numerical entities within the ruleset...

If that's really true, then D&D and its tree of offspring should stop being marketed as "roleplaying games", and instead go for something that would be more accurate such as "tactical simulation games" or "freeform boardgames". Without story and character of some sort, and thus the need for underlying setting coherence and consistency and everything that entails, you really do not have a "roleplaying game", as no "roles" are actually being played.

Disliking a type of game or a particular setting does not mean it is a bad game with stupid rules. A rule needs to be judged in the context of the game it's in and how it accomplishes it's goal in that game.

First, I'm also looking at the very concept of a Vancian magic system, outside of the rules, and finding it patently ridiculous, even accounting for the fact that it's magic in a fantasy setting.

Second, as a rules set, regardless of setting, I consider a Vancian system a kludgey nightmare that doesn't balance, but that rather has simply long been taken for granted because it's the "original recipe".

[CharonsHelper]

This is, of course, why we've had nearly 4 decades of issues with "linear fighters and exponential wizards" and variations on that complaint regarding multiple variations of that casting system.

No we haven't. That's mostly just a 3.x thing. (I like 3.x/Pathfinder; I just keep to the first 8-10 levels before casters become OP. The game flows better anyway.)

Not that other editions haven't had their own issues.


Also - you're acting like other systems with different magic systems don't have the same issues. Many of them do.

[CharonsHelper]

The kind that doesn't require hanging one's disbelief by the neck until dead.

So... no - you don't have one?

[Max_Killjoy]

So... no - you don't have one?

I only "don't have one" if we're operating under the false dichotomy that any magic at all justifies absolutely any magic you feel like, and that all magic is equivalent.