New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 44 FirstFirst 1234567891011121328 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 1300
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    yeah, yeah real inspiring and optimistic Faily, but I'm not here to talk about things going right, in character or out of character.

    the reason I talk about this is because there is a problem and its called "I Win buttons" which are detrimental to my fun. he asked why people hate them. I answer. whether I Win buttons works for Faily's or Quertus's table has nothing to do with it. there is no point to saying "but in my experience it works" because its not about your experiences, because it doesn't work for the people who hate them, which is what the thread is about. Because I'm never going to play with you, never going to care what you find fun, never going to care how much your going to say why you like it.

    Because you asked why I hate it, and I'm answering. I already understand why you like it, I don't need explanations for why you like it. Mostly because I don't care. I'm here to tell YOU why I DON'T, because you asked, and therefore implying that you don't understand.

    Simply put: I don't like I Win Buttons because I'm player, not an extra in someones elses story, and I Win Buttons get in the way of that and therefore get discarded. You might say "but I wait I have solutions to have fun with I Win Buttons!" and again I state: I. DON'T. CARE. I already have a solution to that. Its called "not allowing I Win Buttons or One Punch Man into my games." it works quite well, because a vast majority of players see the restriction as pretty reasonable and have no problems with making a character who is nowhere near as powerful as anything Quertus likes to play, because guess what, a vast majority of character concepts work without needing them, and are in fact enhanced by their absence.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  2. - Top - End - #62
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    yeah, yeah real inspiring and optimistic Faily, but I'm not here to talk about things going right, in character or out of character.

    the reason I talk about this is because there is a problem and its called "I Win buttons" which are detrimental to my fun. he asked why people hate them. I answer. whether I Win buttons works for Faily's or Quertus's table has nothing to do with it. there is no point to saying "but in my experience it works" because its not about your experiences, because it doesn't work for the people who hate them, which is what the thread is about. Because I'm never going to play with you, never going to care what you find fun, never going to care how much your going to say why you like it.

    Because you asked why I hate it, and I'm answering. I already understand why you like it, I don't need explanations for why you like it. Mostly because I don't care. I'm here to tell YOU why I DON'T, because you asked, and therefore implying that you don't understand.

    Simply put: I don't like I Win Buttons because I'm player, not an extra in someones elses story, and I Win Buttons get in the way of that and therefore get discarded. You might say "but I wait I have solutions to have fun with I Win Buttons!" and again I state: I. DON'T. CARE. I already have a solution to that. Its called "not allowing I Win Buttons or One Punch Man into my games." it works quite well, because a vast majority of players see the restriction as pretty reasonable and have no problems with making a character who is nowhere near as powerful as anything Quertus likes to play, because guess what, a vast majority of character concepts work without needing them, and are in fact enhanced by their absence.

    My experience so far is that I'm not which is more trouble, more likely to make the game less fun for the rest of the table... the player who wants other PCs to by the extras for their PC... or the player who wants their PC to be the extra.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Orc in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    So, I often see posters complaining about "win buttons" - things that just work, and solve problems.
    It is not a crime for PC's to be good at something. It is also actually the intended goal for the PC's to win - A LOT. But REPEATED, EASY victory is unsatisfying. "Having is not always so pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical - but it is often true." - Spock

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    This seems a better argument for what I call Hard Mode than it does an argument against win buttons. Except that Hard Mode doesn't care if someone else is One Punch Man.
    Hahaha, fair question. Um... Yes. A few times. IMO, it's nice to have someone in the party who can drop a nuke when the standard guns just aren't cutting it. Whether that nuke is a Knock spell, a phone call to someone of Importance, or a literal nuke.
    You know I think that these little bits (combined with what I know from the hard mode thread) kind of gets at what the disconnect is. Which is, most people get a little upset when they are rendered obsolete. I don't know if this makes you the least competitive person I have ever met or what. I'm running out of time, as I wrote this post out of order, but I do feel there is a disconnect here and I'll try to hone in on it tomorrow.

    I don't use words I haven't heard IRL, but that v word, or internal consistency, if you prefer that over "realistic", but yes.
    Well... I have to raise a metaphorical eyebrow everyone claims a thing involving magic is realistic. As for internal consistency, internally consistency to what? The grievously imbalance world of 3.5e, as per the Playgrounder's Fallacy? Sure, as much as I think that was just bad design. A more Kung Fu centered story? No, not in the slightest.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirBellias View Post
    In Apocalypse World and others, most "Win Buttons" start more problems than end them, so they aren't an issue.
    That's not called winning, that's escalation.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Cynical answer:

    Because DMs have all the power. Whenever a player's character gets some power the DM feels he is losing his. When a character's ability forces the DM to have a bad guy behave a certain way instead of the DM's way, or even worse, affect the DM's dice roll, that's the player telling the DM what to do and some DMs cannot stand it. I've witnessed it. I've even been that player with a DM who got upset I had an ability that made a monster reroll its attack roll when it was a Natural 20 originally.

    Less cynical but still happens:

    Some DMs can't or won't adapt their adventure design to accommodate a character's new ability. They hate flying because they can't use chasms anymore. They hate teleport because they can no longer have a 3 week journey of fluff random encounters when the players want to get to their quest already or get back to home base. These DMs resent not being able to use their staple set-ups, so they take it out on the abilities that cause this and call them broken.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    Cynical answer:

    Because DMs have all the power. Whenever a player's character gets some power the DM feels he is losing his. When a character's ability forces the DM to have a bad guy behave a certain way instead of the DM's way, or even worse, affect the DM's dice roll, that's the player telling the DM what to do and some DMs cannot stand it. I've witnessed it. I've even been that player with a DM who got upset I had an ability that made a monster reroll its attack roll when it was a Natural 20 originally.

    Less cynical but still happens:

    Some DMs can't or won't adapt their adventure design to accommodate a character's new ability. They hate flying because they can't use chasms anymore. They hate teleport because they can no longer have a 3 week journey of fluff random encounters when the players want to get to their quest already or get back to home base. These DMs resent not being able to use their staple set-ups, so they take it out on the abilities that cause this and call them broken.

    Yeah, that's totally it.
    Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2017-07-31 at 10:55 PM.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Another way to think about the character abilities often called "win buttons" is that the conversation is really about the concept of fairness, and perhaps a little bit about trust. It's not about what particular instances of exact abilities and situations are fair or unfair, but the concept of fairness as part of a game system, the behaivior of the players, and peoples individual experiences.

    Flying, teleporting, invisible, no-doors, mind-control, divination abilities are part of some of our games. In supers games nobody complains, anyone can have them and everyone is expecting them. It's considered fair. Likewise with an all wizard (or all fighter) D&D party, no complaints because everyone considers it equal and fair. Note also that when everything is considered fair there is no requirement for people to trust others to behave appropriately because nobody has an 'unfair' advantage.

    Move down to something D&D-like, with a party of fighters and one mage. If you consider the game to be fair (through any mechanisim, be it dice mechanics, rules, the setting, random encounters, resource management, by design or by accident) there are still no complaints. Even if the mage can fly and turn invisible, if for any reason it's "fair" then people don't complain about "win buttons". In addition, if the group trusts whomever is playing the mage character to 'play nice with others' then that group will not complain. These people, accustomed to playing with others who do not abuse any flaws in a game to be 'unfair' or to impede the enjoyment of their fellow players, will also generally not complain about "win buttons".

    So I would suggest that character abilities that are referred to as 'win buttons' are just character abilities in games. What people are really talking about is perceived unfairness. That's a particularly difficult issue because we all have different experiences and expectations, which can lead to very different ideas of fairness in games.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    30.2672° N, 97.7431° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    None of the things the OP listed are "I win" buttons.

    An 'I win" button is a race/class/spell combo that allows the character to excell in every situation with out breaking a sweat. The majic combo that lets a character defeat any foe almost instantly, with little to no damage to themselves and/or come out on top in every non-combat situation.

    An "I win" button is power gaming taken to the Nth degree, and generally tends to make the game less enjoyable for everyone else at the table, because that character overshadows everyone and everything else, to the point where a DM has to either increase the DC of the entier world to slow down that character (thus making the world way too lethal for the rest of the party) or ban that character (and have to listen to the player whine about it).
    Last edited by Mutazoia; 2017-07-31 at 11:28 PM.
    "Sleeping late might not be a virtue, but it sure aint no vice. The old saw about the early bird and the worm just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."

    - L. Long

    I think, therefore I get really, really annoyed at people who won't.

    "A plucky band of renegade short-order cooks fighting the Empire with the power of cheap, delicious food and a side order of whup-ass."

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by CharonsHelper View Post
    It really depends upon the system.

    If the game has perfect flying be an easy ability to grab, then it shouldn't also make climbing and/or jumping something which requires significant resources to do well.

    Both systems can work. In a superhero game it totally makes sense for flying to be a thing, but another hero probably wouldn't worry too much about putting points into 'mountain climbing'. If they don't want to fly, they'll just get Batman's ultimate grappling hook or something.

    But if a system is designed around 'mountain climbing' being a significant investment, then a different character shouldn't be able to pull out 'flying' on a whim and invalidate both that character's investment & that entire part of the system.
    That is basically the core of it.

    The "Win buttons" are not bad at all. They are just cool abilities and tools. Auto-success is not bad either, it just makes them reliable tools you can count on if you make your plans.

    It is when they solve problems which DMs envision as central challanges or other players want to be a central pillar of a viable character specialisation build. The latter is also one of the roots for complaints about the auto win - if it is supposed to be a core feature of bossible builds, there needs to be room for improvements over the levels.



    So overall, it comes down to "people disagree/ have different preferrences over what the game is about"

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Draconi Redfir's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Gobbotopia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    i think it really boils down to "all easy all the time is boring"

    like if you hacked dark souls enough to make it so that you never died, never took damage, never fell off cliffs, never took any status effects like poison or whatever, and all enemies and bosses died in one hit, then that wouldn't be a fun game at all. it would quickly get boring and eventually the only thing you would be doing is wasting your own time for no reason.
    Avy by Thormag
    Spoiler
    Show


  11. - Top - End - #71
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Mar 2013

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    So, I often see posters complaining about "win buttons" - things that just work, and solve problems. Like how Invisibility says you just can't be seen, Flight says you can just bypass any obstacle, or the classic D&D Knock spell lets you just open any door, no skill roll, no risk.

    Yes, these things just work. So what? Many - heck, most - games are based on abilities that just work. When the knight moves into the same space as the opposing pawn, it just captures the piece. When I set fire to the obsidian "O", it just turns into a portal. When I pass "Go", I just collect $200. Why do RPG players seen so loath to accept the concept of things that just work?

    EDIT
    Yes, this is the Playground, home of the Playgrounder Fallacy. And, yes, all of the abilities I listed are available in D&D 3e. But I hadn't actually intended to limit this to a 3e discussion.

    Reasons I understand so far:
    • Inaccuracy - some "win" buttons shouldn't actually automatically succeed
    • exacerbates problems of what is in character vs what makes for a fun game


    Reasons why win buttons get a (potentially-undeserved) bad rap:
    • Association with unbalanced characters in unbalanced games
    A real "Press enter to win"- button automatically solves your problem - automatically (usually also instantaneously)! Thus meaning removing any challenge. Is that fun? For most situations not!

    It the button only gives you a strong advantage, then its not a real win-button.


    Neither invisibility (you can spot an invisibly creature (the presence of, at least), with a dc20 spot check), nor fly are win-buttons. A win button might be gating in something from the ELH. Your point is seems is that most are not win-buttons and you would be correct.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Vancian casting, that wizards have only so many slots to fit their spells in, was supposed to be a balancing point. A rogue can pick any number of locks, a wizard can cast Knock only a few times, and those slots can't be used for other spells.

    I seem to recall that there was an explanation for why Vancian casting is in fact not a balacing point, but it escapes me...
    Last edited by goto124; 2017-08-01 at 05:28 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    If adventurers / superheroes / whatever the PCs are are supposed to be rare, IMO it can make sense that only a select few strongholds were built with the full expense of dealing with such capabilities. I haven't checked the blueprints or done the science, but I don't think my house was designed to withstand a determined tank, let alone a nuclear blast.

    So why is it nonsensical for the PCs to be above and beyond what the world is equipped to deal with?
    See how the presence of “win” button changes assumptions about the world you are playing in.
    Here Adventurers are rare and as such them having win buttons doesn’t mean the world automatically grow to counter them.
    If you have players that don’t like that assumption then suddenly win buttons become a problem.

    I don’t hate win buttons but I do have a strong dislike for 5d chess. (Thanks for Max_killjoy for the term 5d chess, I think it was Max that first said it) The game has I win buttons so GMs change your adventure design to counter them. (I think that has been said on this thread)
    Player – I use “I Win”
    GM – I counter with “Counter I win”
    Player – I counter with “Counter Counter I Win”
    GM – I counter with “Counter Counter Counter I Win”
    I don’t enjoy that style of game. I win buttons encourage that style of game.
    I don’t hate “I Win” buttons but I just don’t need them. For me it’s not fun looking through loads of books finding I win buttons or worse as a GM HAVING to look for “Counter I Win” buttons.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Milo - I know what you are thinking Ork, has he fired 5 shots or 6, well as this is a wand of scorching ray, the most powerful second level wand in the world. What you have to ask your self is "Do I feel Lucky", well do you, Punk.
    Galkin - Erm Milo, wands have 50 charges not 6.
    Milo - NEATO !!
    BLAST

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Aneurin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nottingham, UK

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    I don't like win buttons because, frankly, they're utterly pointless.

    Let's look at Dungeons and Dragons here since, well, this topic seems to have become all about Dungeons and Dragons.

    First of all, let's ask why these win buttons were built in to the system in the first place. I'll admit to being baffled by Knock's existence, but things like Teleport, Dimension Door, and the various Flight spells seem to have been included to get around travel - to avoid it. Presumably because the game designers considered it boring since they were making a game built around brutally killing things and taking their stuff.

    Fine, right? Just use a spell to skip the boring stuff?

    Except... why bother? If your players aren't enjoying something, don't do it any more. If your players find travelling and random encounters boring, just gloss over it - there's no point in making them use a spell or whatever to do it! If they don't want to do your dungeon crawl, and elect to scry-and-die the final boss instead, maybe stop using dungeon crawls.

    On top of that (but largely secondary to my main reasoning above), now that you have those avoid-the-boring-bits spells, which were, I strongly suspect, only thought about in terms of "how can we make this more effective at avoiding X boring bit", your players also have a wealth of new not-necessarily-rules-as-intended tactical options which, since the game as a whole didn't properly account for them, make the PCs a great deal stronger than intended - and, since D&D all but punishes sub-optimal choices all but forces the players to employ them.

    So in the end, these "win" buttons have a.) failed at their basic purpose, since there was never a need for them, and b.) provided a much-stronger-than-standard set of tactical options which the PCs are all but forced to take if they want to be "competitive" or whatever.
    Amazing Banshee avatar by Strawberries. Many, many thanks.

  15. - Top - End - #75

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    Less cynical but still happens:

    Some DMs can't or won't adapt their adventure design to accommodate a character's new ability. They hate flying because they can't use chasms anymore. They hate teleport because they can no longer have a 3 week journey of fluff random encounters when the players want to get to their quest already or get back to home base. These DMs resent not being able to use their staple set-ups, so they take it out on the abilities that cause this and call them broken.
    This is the big one I see. The DM does not want to do the ''power race'' vs the players.

    Most often the DM simply can't handle the ''up'' in power. It changes the game too much and forces the DM to pay attention. Like the DM does not want to say ''Castle Doom is warded against teleport'', because then his bad guy NPC can't teleport there either. And the DM is not creative enough to work around that and take things up to the next level...or they just don't want too.

    Very common too is the DM that does not want to change their ''perfect'' world. They wrote down X, and don't want to change it just as the characters have a ability.

    The worst is the DM who ''won't change things'' as they are stuck in the player corner. They know the players won't like anything they do to make the game 'hard' or even 'a challenge' so they just sit back, half under the table, and say ''you guys win again''.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by goto124 View Post
    I seem to recall that there was an explanation for why Vancian casting is in fact not a balacing point, but it escapes me...
    Scrolls and wands in 3X. More exactly, the pricing of magic items and gold-magic transparency. Spell slots, which had been rare, could now be effectively purchased with gold, which tends to be plentiful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aneurin View Post
    I don't like win buttons because, frankly, they're utterly pointless.

    Let's look at Dungeons and Dragons here since, well, this topic seems to have become all about Dungeons and Dragons.

    First of all, let's ask why these win buttons were built in to the system in the first place. I'll admit to being baffled by Knock's existence, but things like Teleport, Dimension Door, and the various Flight spells seem to have been included to get around travel - to avoid it.
    I think it's more accurate to say they were put in because they were things magic-users in fantasy stories had been able to do. BAck in 1st edition there were "PArt Water" and "Sticks to Snakes" so you could play Moses.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    So the disconnect, basically it has to do with overshadowing. I've only played one game where, due to a variety factors, I was a fraction the strength of the other characters. It was a co-op game and really I was more the only one who wasn't overpowered, so we did fine. Still it wasn't fun, struggling with all my might just to make a contribution. And by a contribution I mean hitting a room early so I could take down an enemy or two before the ranger showed up and started taking down 3-6 a turn.

    Not having a chance at winning in a competitive game is frustrating, not being able to contribute in a cooperative game is frustrating. And nothing makes it harder to contribute than other players (or characters) having so much more ability to do things that they have to hold back for you to have a shot. Especially when you trying gives the team less chance of success than letting the button get pushed.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Somewhere Warm

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    I feel like these sorts of things are mostly negative when they're uneven and unexpected- one one person is God-Man the Omnipotent and the other is Sir Absolot the Stab Knight.

    In some games everyone has crazy game breaking power and this it's mostly fine. Nobilis, for example, would cheerily accept Saitama from One Punch Man as a normal character.

    I wouldn't dream of attempting to challenge my Nobilis players with something I'd use on a D&D character. Most of them wouldn't be challenged if I asked them to all travel to the moon. Sure, some of them might have to try harder than others, but at least a few of them would just jump really hard or turn into a ladder or something.

    The fun is mostly finding out how people will apply their particular brand of Win-Button to the situation.
    On a quest to marry Asmodeus, lord of the Nine Hells, or die trying.

  19. - Top - End - #79

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    So the disconnect, basically it has to do with overshadowing. I've only played one game where, due to a variety factors, I was a fraction the strength of the other characters. It was a co-op game and really I was more the only one who wasn't overpowered, so we did fine. Still it wasn't fun, struggling with all my might just to make a contribution. And by a contribution I mean hitting a room early so I could take down an enemy or two before the ranger showed up and started taking down 3-6 a turn.

    Not having a chance at winning in a competitive game is frustrating, not being able to contribute in a cooperative game is frustrating. And nothing makes it harder to contribute than other players (or characters) having so much more ability to do things that they have to hold back for you to have a shot. Especially when you trying gives the team less chance of success than letting the button get pushed.
    This is more Party Balance and DM Type then a ''win button''.

    It's also a more ''if your just playing a by-the-numbers combat roll playing game''. And sure, lots of people like to play like that. They have ''a kind of fun'' counting every point of damage done as some sort of meter of the fun level of the game to them...or something.

    But it's only for that sort of game. If your playing say, a role playing adventure, then it does not matter how many ''numbers of damage'' you do a round.

    Though the big problem does come up when the DM is a by-the-numbers combat roll playing game type DM. Then it's a numbers game and all the numbers matter.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Orc in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Richardson, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    So the disconnect, basically it has to do with overshadowing. I've only played one game where, due to a variety factors, I was a fraction the strength of the other characters. It was a co-op game and really I was more the only one who wasn't overpowered, so we did fine. Still it wasn't fun, struggling with all my might just to make a contribution. And by a contribution I mean hitting a room early so I could take down an enemy or two before the ranger showed up and started taking down 3-6 a turn.

    Not having a chance at winning in a competitive game is frustrating, not being able to contribute in a cooperative game is frustrating. And nothing makes it harder to contribute than other players (or characters) having so much more ability to do things that they have to hold back for you to have a shot. Especially when you trying gives the team less chance of success than letting the button get pushed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    This is more Party Balance and DM Type then a ''win button''.

    It's also a more ''if your just playing a by-the-numbers combat roll playing game''. And sure, lots of people like to play like that. They have ''a kind of fun'' counting every point of damage done as some sort of meter of the fun level of the game to them...or something.

    But it's only for that sort of game. If your playing say, a role playing adventure, then it does not matter how many ''numbers of damage'' you do a round.

    Though the big problem does come up when the DM is a by-the-numbers combat roll playing game type DM. Then it's a numbers game and all the numbers matter.
    (Working off of 5e balance assumptions; I assume they're not too far off from 3.5)
    If the game design says conflicts should be split between combat (where Wizard A uses 1 or 2 of their 20-ish spells to conquer single-handedly), social (where Wizard A uses 1 or 2 of their 20-ish spells to conquer single-handedly), or exploration (where Wizard A uses 1 or 2 of their 20-ish spells to conquer single-handedly), and the game design says there should be 6-8 encounters a day, that means that a single wizard is invalidating the rest of the party (even if Wizard A is using 2 spells in each encounter, that's only 16 of their 20-ish spells).

    The first problem I see with win buttons is the existence of a single character possessing a multitude of 'win buttons'. The second is that in order to react to a single character (or even a party) with access to all of those 'win buttons', a GM has to look into tactics (and often worldbuilding) beyond things which make sense from our cultural upbringing.

    If the world has a decent number of people who can cast Charm, how does a GM design a government so that PCs can't just sow chaos and destruction right from lvl 1? Or, rather, how do cash-strapped governments (i.e. all of them) plan to counter a tactic that would be clearly employed by highly-powerful individuals (PCs) and enemy organizations / nations?

    If the world has a small number of people who can turn invisible, fly, and mind control anyone who happens to discover them, how do governments and organizations defend against that? How is a GM supposed to wrap their head around what this will look like when they find out, 6 sessions in, that the party can do that every day (while still having the resources of 3 more characters)?

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by malachi View Post
    (Working off of 5e balance assumptions; I assume they're not too far off from 3.5)
    If the game design says conflicts should be split between combat (where Wizard A uses 1 or 2 of their 20-ish spells to conquer single-handedly), social (where Wizard A uses 1 or 2 of their 20-ish spells to conquer single-handedly), or exploration (where Wizard A uses 1 or 2 of their 20-ish spells to conquer single-handedly), and the game design says there should be 6-8 encounters a day, that means that a single wizard is invalidating the rest of the party (even if Wizard A is using 2 spells in each encounter, that's only 16 of their 20-ish spells).

    The first problem I see with win buttons is the existence of a single character possessing a multitude of 'win buttons'. The second is that in order to react to a single character (or even a party) with access to all of those 'win buttons', a GM has to look into tactics (and often worldbuilding) beyond things which make sense from our cultural upbringing.

    If the world has a decent number of people who can cast Charm, how does a GM design a government so that PCs can't just sow chaos and destruction right from lvl 1? Or, rather, how do cash-strapped governments (i.e. all of them) plan to counter a tactic that would be clearly employed by highly-powerful individuals (PCs) and enemy organizations / nations?

    If the world has a small number of people who can turn invisible, fly, and mind control anyone who happens to discover them, how do governments and organizations defend against that? How is a GM supposed to wrap their head around what this will look like when they find out, 6 sessions in, that the party can do that every day (while still having the resources of 3 more characters)?
    Thus getting back to the system / setting disconnect that I mentioned upthread.

    Ever notice how rarely game settings -- especially "high fantasy" settings -- follow through with the implications of the powers given to PCs and their enemies, allies, etc?
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Right behind you!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    Ever notice how rarely game settings -- especially "high fantasy" settings -- follow through with the implications of the powers given to PCs and their enemies, allies, etc?
    Such things can be okay if the PCs & their foes are the EXTREMELY RARE cases of those who have those abilities so that it makes sense if most aren't ready for it, but it makes no sense when such things are known quantities.

    Ex: It would make sense if villains hadn't prepared for Hercules' strength being able to overcome their defenses. Because - he's the only one with that kind of strength.
    Last edited by CharonsHelper; 2017-08-01 at 09:04 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by CharonsHelper View Post
    Such things can be okay if the PCs & their foes are the EXTREMELY RARE cases of those who have those abilities so that it makes sense if most aren't ready for it, but it makes no sense when such things are known quantities.
    Even if they're rare, one has to wonder (OK, I have to wonder, at least) why there isn't a "conspiracy of casters" using their illusions, shape-changing, mind manipulation, etc, spells to control the various rulers of the world. Every ruler would need the highest level caster he could bring in, and would never really know if he was the one in control, or the caster was. It would only take a few dozen casters of even moderate level, and that would be a "very rare" rate even in the population of say 1400 BCE Europe.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnbragg View Post
    I think it's more accurate to say they were put in because they were things magic-users in fantasy stories had been able to do. BAck in 1st edition there were "PArt Water" and "Sticks to Snakes" so you could play Moses.
    3.5 still has Part Water (in stormwrack) though I can't remember if it's still called that.




    The main problem I have with "I win" buttons is the following:

    (Party 1: Barbarian, Rogue, Paladin, Ranger)
    DM: *Spends a while designing module* "Okay, so, as previously discussed, you've reached the evil king's fortress. You see the main door up in front of you."
    Ranger: Okay, I'll send my animal companion to prowl around and see if there are any other doors.
    *Search-related dialogue*
    DM: Okay, you find a back door.
    All: We sneak around to the back.
    *Hide/MS-related dialogue*
    DM: You manage to just about sneak around, but one of the guards goes over to investigate.
    Rogue: I try to keep him talking...
    Ranger: ...and I'll sneak up behind him to give you the flank.
    *Bluff/Hide/MS-related dialogue*
    DM: Okay, you succeed.
    Rogue: I knock him out.
    DM: Okay, he's clean unconscious. Now, you get a good look at the door...
    *Module continues*

    (Party 2: Wizard, 3 other poor schmucks)
    DM: *Spends a while designing module* "Okay, so, as previously discussed, you've reached the evil king's fortress. You see the main door up in front of you."
    Wizard: I irresistible scrying the king.
    DM: Okay, you can see the king's room.
    Wizard: I turn invisible and greater teleport into the king's room.
    Wizard: I cast irresistible phantasmal killer on the king.
    DM: He dies.
    Wizard: I greater teleport back to the rebel leader and inform him of my success.
    DM: *Tears up notes about guard patrols, traps, and the layout of most of the fortress*
    Fighter: Uh, well, I start walking back to the rebel base...
    DM: Okay, well, give me a moment to come up with a new module, guys...

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Given the arguments put forth in this thread, I think the issue is less "I win" buttons as a whole, and more "I win" buttons obsoleting other player's characters or the expected power level of the game. The 'knock' spell vs lock-picking rogues is an excellent example, in 3.5 especially. You could devote multiple skill points, class features, and even feats into becoming the ultimate lock-picker... or the resident spellcaster could pick up a single cheap spell.

    Granted, the Rogue could just max UMD and pick up a wand of Knock... but that still obliterates his concept. I think the major problem stems from 3.5's desire to satisfy such a massive range of play styles and power levels. You can't put (Marvel comics) Doctor Strange and (Assassin's Creed) Altaïr on the same team without the latter feeling useless the vast majority of the time. Need to tail someone? Scry them. Kill someone? Fry them. Enter a secure complex? Teleport in. Outside of scenarios specifically designed by the GM to lock down the caster, there's nothing the assassin can do that the caster can't do better.

    To be fair, this is a problem I've only consistently encountered playing 3.5/P. 5E went a long way to mitigate the problem, and none of the other systems I've played has had such a massive power disparity between players (barring maybe WoD).
    Spoiler: Systems to Play List
    Show

    Burning Wheel
    Call of Cthulhu PC
    D&D 3.5 GM/PC
    D&D 4E GM/PC
    D&D 5E GM/PC
    Dark Heresy PC
    Dungeons the Dragoning: 40K 7E
    Exalted 3E
    Fantasy Craft
    FATE
    Godbound GM
    GURPS 4E
    Monsterhearts
    Monsters and other Childish Things
    Mythender
    New World of Darkness
    - Changeling: The Lost
    - Werewolf: The Forsaken PC
    - Mage: The Awakening PC
    Savage Worlds GM/PC
    Shadowrun 5E
    Star Wars: EOTE GM/PC


  26. - Top - End - #86
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Broken Twin View Post
    To be fair, this is a problem I've only consistently encountered playing 3.5/P. 5E went a long way to mitigate the problem, and none of the other systems I've played has had such a massive power disparity between players (barring maybe WoD).
    And the ways that 5e mitigated most of it are some of the most-hated changes (or so at least it seems to me):
    • Concentration limits on spell-casting removes a lot of the buff-play (and the scaling on fly means that it's a lot harder to move more than one and you're vulnerable to arrows).
    • Scrying and teleport both gained explicit limitations and burn high-level slots which are much more rare
    • Bounded Accuracy means that failure is still on the table for almost everyone and can't really be optimized away.
    • Very few save-or-dies means scry-and-die doesn't work nearly as well.
    • Invisibility doesn't make you un-spottable, it just makes it easier to hide and gives advantage on an attack.


    Basically, the "I Win" buttons have been heavily reduced in potency and have gained built-in counters and actual resource costs. It's not a perfect balance, but it's significantly better.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    This is more Party Balance and DM Type then a ''win button''.

    It's also a more ''if your just playing a by-the-numbers combat roll playing game''. And sure, lots of people like to play like that. They have ''a kind of fun'' counting every point of damage done as some sort of meter of the fun level of the game to them...or something.

    But it's only for that sort of game. If your playing say, a role playing adventure, then it does not matter how many ''numbers of damage'' you do a round.

    Though the big problem does come up when the DM is a by-the-numbers combat roll playing game type DM. Then it's a numbers game and all the numbers matter.
    Unfortunately in a number of systems this is untrue. Of course the example which springs to mind is 3.5 where there are a number of Win Buttons for social situations. The most obvious example is 3.5 with the Glibness spell (which while it's intended to be used on a bard, where it would make sense re: team cohesion, can be cheesed onto a wizard fairly easily). Or in places like Exalted, although that system is based entirely around the concept of Win Buttons so it's much more forgivable there.

    No in a lot of systems Win Buttons exist for any type of situation from combat to social to exploration. It's not simply a matter of "role-playing vs roll-playing", it's a problem of having a high level character who has spent his whole life mastering an ability only to have another character come along and blow them out of the water with no chance to resist because the game designers thought that aspect of the game wasn't interesting enough.

    Feel sorry for the poor locksmiths in D&D where maybe, just maybe, they can slow down a 1st or 2nd level character for a round or two because beyond that point the characters have a win button for locks.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinkerer View Post
    Feel sorry for the poor locksmiths in D&D where maybe, just maybe, they can slow down a 1st or 2nd level character for a round or two because beyond that point the characters have a win button for locks.
    That matches IRL before electronic locks. Mechanical locks are primarily there to deter the lazy, unskilled, or even just as indicators that something isn't intended to be entered. Anything less than a safe with a dial lock or a bolt from the inside isn't going to stop someone who is half-skilled at picking locks. If it has a keyhole, it can be done given enough time.

    What matters is if you can do it fast. In D&D terms, that'd be making a single check vs taking 20 (3e) or automatic success for taking ten times as long (5e).

    Of you could just try to open it quicker with a few solid shoulders/kicks, or instantly by using a Knock spell. At the cost of alerting everything around you that you're there.

    Actions and choices should have consequences. A lot of things that are seen as 'I win' buttons (typically spells, but not always) are done so because the DM isn't enforcing any kind of consequence. Be it from creatures getting upset about mental domination, to getting upset about being Intimidated/Decieved (once it comes to light) instead of Persuaded, to a resource (spell) being burned to bypass a challenge. I mean, if someone uses a Fly spell to get the party across a chasm, as opposed to a strong guy leaping it and securing a rope so others can crawl across, that's one less spell that can be used for other things.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    Even if they're rare, one has to wonder (OK, I have to wonder, at least) why there isn't a "conspiracy of casters" using their illusions, shape-changing, mind manipulation, etc, spells to control the various rulers of the world. Every ruler would need the highest level caster he could bring in, and would never really know if he was the one in control, or the caster was. It would only take a few dozen casters of even moderate level, and that would be a "very rare" rate even in the population of say 1400 BCE Europe.
    1) Deus Ex Machina - It's part of the god of magic's job to prevent this

    2) In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the Muggle Prime Minister was incredulous of why Fudge and the Ministry Of Magic can't just solve their problems easily because they have magic they can do anything. Fudge responds that the other side has magic too. In this case, all the mages trying to take over get in each other's way preventing any from succeeding so eventually they find another way. That's why they're always the Vizier to be the power behind the throne. A few just have to be King anyway, so they need a long term plan. To achieve that they first need to become a lich. They would have gotten away with it if it were not for those meddlesome adventurers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    (Party 2: Wizard, 3 other poor schmucks)
    DM: *Spends a while designing module* "Okay, so, as previously discussed, you've reached the evil king's fortress. You see the main door up in front of you."
    Wizard: I irresistible scrying the king.
    DM: Okay, you can see the king's room.
    Wizard: I turn invisible and greater teleport into the king's room.
    Wizard: I cast irresistible phantasmal killer on the king.
    DM: He dies.
    Wizard: I greater teleport back to the rebel leader and inform him of my success.
    DM: *Tears up notes about guard patrols, traps, and the layout of most of the fortress*
    Fighter: Uh, well, I start walking back to the rebel base...
    DM: Okay, well, give me a moment to come up with a new module, guys...
    The problem is not Greater Teleport, Scrying, etc. The problem is the DM wrote a level 5 adventure for a level 13 party. Try Scrying or using Greater Teleport to get into the lich-king's lair.
    Last edited by Pex; 2017-08-01 at 01:22 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Why the hate for "win buttons"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    1) Deus Ex Machina - It's part of the god of magic's job to prevent this
    DEM is considered a trite cliche and to-be-avoided trope for many reasons that don't need repeating yet again... "the gods won't let you" just might be the cheapest, flimsiest, laziest excuse possible for why settings don't follow through on the implications of elements within. It can just be thrown at anything anyone doesn't want to have happen in the setting, with no reasoning or logic, just "sorry, god says no". It's not something most players would let a GM get away with for long, so why should the authors of a setting get away with it either?


    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    2) In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the Muggle Prime Minister was incredulous of why Fudge and the Ministry Of Magic can't just solve their problems easily because they have magic they can do anything. Fudge responds that the other side has magic too. In this case, all the mages trying to take over get in each other's way preventing any from succeeding so eventually they find another way. That's why they're always the Vizier to be the power behind the throne. A few just have to be King anyway, so they need a long term plan. To achieve that they first need to become a lich. They would have gotten away with it if it were not for those meddlesome adventurers.
    So the powerful casters are always at odds and would never, never, ever decide to conspire and collaborate?

    And using your example, Voldy's cronies wouldn't have seized control of the mortal government had they won the war instead of Harry and Co?
    Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2017-08-01 at 02:36 PM.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •