Why the hate for "win buttons"?

[Anymage]

Yes, I flatly do resent it. Because what stories I am or am not allowed to tell shouldn't be dictated by a frakking spell list.

This is why I like to call the "just make better adventures" people out and ask them to advance their own plots. It's easy to say "well, don't make plots that are invalidated by published spells". It's another thing entirely to actually do so.

I honestly begin to wonder what sort of games some people have experienced, seeing as the claims that the presence of high-level play or existence of spells like Teleport, Fly, and Invisibility make the world into a "continous deadly challenge in being the most prepared person in existence and nothing is a challenge anymore"... I mean... part of me is completely baffled, because it doesn't have much foot in any reality I've seen in my years of gaming ... Also, most boat-adventures end in tears. Never get on the boat.

That's kind of the whole narrative point of boats. Complications are what make adventures interesting. The Odyssey would be really dull if Odysseus got home with no complications. Which is what a teleport spell would have done.

As far as seeing that sort of thing in play, players like to take advantage of their cool powers. And honestly, letting players feel cool for doing cool things with their cool powers is one of the things a good GM should do. The problem comes partially when particular plot-devicey spells invalidate whole plots, and partially depending on when those player controlled plot devices come on line.

As Mechalich said, there's also the question of required system mastery to not blow things up. Experienced players may well not select Teleport because they know that short-circuiting the adventure means that everybody will wind up sitting around with nothing to do. Less experienced or less thoughtful players can blow up a game just by using printed abilities for their stated purpose. This is not using one of a genie's wishes to bind more genies for even more wishes. This is bypassing the first two Fellowship of the Rings books because you have a clear mechanical ability that lets you skip straigh to Mount Doom.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is why I like to call the "just make better adventures" people out and ask them to advance their own plots. It's easy to say "well, don't make plots that are invalidated by published spells". It's another thing entirely to actually do so.

I think that's been requested for a while now over a couple similar discussions.

[Pex]

This is why I like to call the "just make better adventures" people out and ask them to advance their own plots. It's easy to say "well, don't make plots that are invalidated by published spells". It's another thing entirely to actually do so.

Angels from Heaven have entered the world declaring everyone unclean. They annihilate all to let the gods sort them out and start over. Convince them of their error.

The Blood War is over. Devils and Demons have united and are attacking the Upper Planes. Get the Blood War started again.

The Cult of Pelor the Burning Hate is spreading. Prove to the world the Blasphemy and restore Pelor's Good name.

Two Beholders claim to be Xanathar. Waterdeep and surrounding areas are in Thieves' Guilds Wars. You need to get the real Xanathar in sole power because of a deal he made crucial to the safety of Waterdeep even the Open Lord Paladin knows and accepts, but is Xanathar one of those Beholders?

[oxybe]

So your answer to "knock and such things are a right pain in the arse, what do?" is "bugger it all, it's Apocapalooza! We're getting all the end of world prophecies all at once!"?

There's escalation and then there's hyperbole. neither solve the problem at hand.

As I said in my post: these effects aren't a problem in a vaccum, but it's because they don't fit the scope of power the genre conventions at that level assumes.

Then there is a second issue that the D&D Wizard is, IMO, a conceptually bad class, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

[Drakevarg]

Angels from Heaven have entered the world declaring everyone unclean. They annihilate all to let the gods sort them out and start over. Convince them of their error.

The Blood War is over. Devils and Demons have united and are attacking the Upper Planes. Get the Blood War started again.

The Cult of Pelor the Burning Hate is spreading. Prove to the world the Blasphemy and restore Pelor's Good name.

Two Beholders claim to be Xanathar. Waterdeep and surrounding areas are in Thieves' Guilds Wars. You need to get the real Xanathar in sole power because of a deal he made crucial to the safety of Waterdeep even the Open Lord Paladin knows and accepts, but is Xanathar one of those Beholders?

Those are more premises than plotlines. Given enough of a timeline you could make them the main story at any level, since practically anything could occur between the opening blurb and the resolution. To use TV a clunky analog, those are entire seasons. The problem with Win Buttons tends to occur closer to the episodic level.

Unless you're implying that the proper way to play high-level D&D is to treat the end of the world as something that interrupts your weekend at most.

[Lord Raziere]

from what I've heard, none of those adventures would be enough for the players who do this I-Win button stuff, they'd just start pulling even crazier combo on the level of tippyverse or something. or they start complaining that isn't a sandbox anymore, because somehow I win buttons and sandboxes always seem to attract each other, whereas I personally don't see the point of sandboxes and want to play out my characters story.

I can just hear the optimizers going "oh that, I already prepared for that and have this spell combo that destroys all demons/convinces the head angel/scry and die the cult leader/kill both Beholders and kills all the thieves because they're criminals"

[Pex]

Don't like the answer don't ask the question. When you're at world changing power you deal with world changing problems.

You can do the stereotypes.

Kill the lich. Slay the great wyrm red dragon. Find the baby prophesied to grow up to become a mass murderer and make sure that doesn't happen.

Stop resenting it's no longer about guarding caravans, slay the pirate captain, rescue the princess, clear out the abandoned mine. If you prefer, maybe it's guard the caravan as it sails on the River Styx, slay the bag of devouring monster, rescue Harmonious' Heironeous' daughter, clear out a demiplane. Nothing world threatening at all. If you complain that's all about plane hopping, that's what Plane Shift and Astral Projection are for.

If you are going to resent it, accept that's just your personal taste. You are not caring for the high power, but that doesn't mean the game is broken. It's just not for you. You don't have to like high power play, and I'm not going to make you. I don't need to. It answers the thread question. Learn to accept that other people do like the high power play and do not share whatever issues you have about it. Don't try to convince me to hate it.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's pretty telling when an argument comes down to personal attacks from one side...

[Faily]

Let's see, high-level adventures...

All the final chapters of published adventures. Pathfinder's tend to end with PCs achieving 17th level at the end of the adventure. Of all the published adventures I've played so far, they seem to take into account players utilizing spells like Teleport, Plane Shift, Gate, etc... War of the Burning Sky saw us pool our resources like crazy into Gate to bypass a problem that would've been a huge stain on the conscience of the entire party (not gonna reveal the spoiler, but in short, the game wanted you to do something not-nice to get to the end, and well... a party of 3 LG and one NG just wasn't going to accept that).

For non-published adventures, some years ago we had a pretty epic campaign that started with us at level 6 or so, and we eventually got to 17-18 before the end. It was pretty amazing, how we started out as do-gooders who earned the recognition of the king, and then later were entrusted by the king to investigate an evil cult, and the cult turned out to be trying to bring about the end of days. We travelled far and wide to recruit allies, take out enemy commanders and allies (and yes we did Teleport while travelling), and had some pretty epic battles where the party-priests called a Solar into combat to help destroy a great evil, and our Barbarian waded into combat like a deadly juggernaut alongside the Swordsage. *blissful sigh* Was my first high-level campaign and I still have lots of fond memories from it.

Then it's our long-running Mystara campaign, playing with Pathfinder rules. Started out at level 1, slow xp progression, 3 of the 4 party members are the same that we started with (4th player likes to change characters and try different things ), highest level is my Paladin at level 19. My paladin and the sorcerer are both doing Kingdom-things, and the cleric is dedicating herself more to her church and furthering her goddess' influence. And all 4 are attempting to achieve Godhood, which in Mystara actually has different challenges set forth that they must complete. Almost all of our adventures have been old-school modules, so for high level adventures we've done something like the Oddyssey (but in spaaaaace!), fought in wars, engaged in delicate diplomatic incidents between different countries, saved a forgotten elven kingdom (I honestly don't remember the name of all the modules we've gone through, but the ones I do remember are: Saber River, Five Coins for a Kingdom, Revenge of Alphax, Tree of Life... I'd have to ask GM for the names of the ones we have played). We've played this campaign for years, and we've had great fun along the way... and the optimization level has a pretty wide-range in the group. At the high-level of system mastery and rules knowledge is me, and the GM is a very close-second, followed by our youngest player being slightly above average in terms of it(he's in his early 20s, rest of us are in our 30s and 40s), and the last two have less than average-skill, and "still can't for the life of him remember most rules even if we use them every session"-level. So it's not like we're a group of hardcore optimizers knowing every counter and contingency, always playing 100% tactical (trust me, we don't... well... half the party is somewhat tactical, and the other half is not, but hey it's gotten us into some fun situations ). And I think our GM does a great job of upping the stakes now that we're in the end-game of things. The battles are tense and fun, and the adventures are fun too. Sure, a locked door hasn't been a problem since level 1, since if Disable Device didn't work, we'd just break it down. The entire campaign has been super-high magic, high-fantasy, with a lot of old D&D flavour.

[Telok]

As I said in my post: these effects aren't a problem in a vaccum, but it's because they don't fit the scope of power the genre conventions at that level assumes.

I'd ask what scope of power is being assumed at a particular level. It would seem that the levels where flying/teleporting/etc. become a perceived problem are also usually the levels where the counters and negations of those abilities show up. Could it instead be people wanting a particular scope of power at a particular level but playing a game that has a different set of assumptions?

[Drakevarg]

Stop resenting...

Don't try to convince me...

"Hello, Pot? This is Kettle speaking..."

[Max_Killjoy]

I'd ask what scope of power is being assumed at a particular level. It would seem that the levels where flying/teleporting/etc. become a perceived problem are also usually the levels where the counters and negations of those abilities show up. Could it instead be people wanting a particular scope of power at a particular level but playing a game that has a different set of assumptions?

It could be that D&D (at least since 3.x) is actually a really bad system for most of the things that people want to play, unless they find the level that it kinda works for that thing -- if you hammer it in sideways and squint -- and stay right at that level without "progressing".

And that it's not accurate for the publisher or the fans to imply, if not outright assert, that it's a "generic fantasy system"... and that played RAW, it's only really good for a very specific kind of game.

And that most of the settings presented for use with the system are horribly asynchronous with that system.

[Quertus]

When you're only using your skills because it's not worth it for the caster to spend spell slots, its hard to feel like you're character is contributing more than another, identical Caster would.

Edit: This isn't a question of Logic, it's a question of psychology and what feels fun at the table.

Logically, a lockpicking rogue can PROBABLY open any given lock, basically for free (it may take them a bit of time). A Wizard with Knock can Guaranteed open that lock, instantly, by expending resources.

So, logically speaking, it's better to use the Rogue as primary, with the wizard as backup. Logically, the Rogue's position as "Party Lockpicker" is safe until the wizard reaches a point where casting "knock" is no longer a meaningful expenditure of resources.

But, that's not what it feels like for the rogue. Especially if you're invested in the idea of your character as The Party Lockpicker, knowing that what you consider a key part of what your character is bringing to the table is, at best, preserving the wizard's resources doesn't do a lot to make you feel special.

Sigh. Sounds like I need to add, "because humans are highly irrational beings" to my list of reasons I understand why people hate win buttons.

But this also touches on another bit of human foolishness: the concept of defining your character by its expected role.

In one group of my friends, I am "the programmer". But, in another group of my friends, we're all programmers. If I had defined myself as "the programmer", I'd be sorely disappointed with my experience with that group. But I'm not. The existence of all those other programmers doesn't make me any less me. Not does hanging out with someone smarter than me, or more of a **** than me, or even a fellow programmer who is smarter and more of a **** than me. Because I am more than just a collection of attributes.

Why would anyone be invested in the idea of having a particular role for their character, especially when it so obviously can cause such huge disappointment and dissatisfaction with an otherwise good game?

Knock is just an easy example. The classic "Rogue Lockpick" may be oversimplified, but it has a strong presence in the general conciousness. Knock is egregious because it's a guaranteed success with nothing else to it. Unlike Flight which, yeah, invalidates climb and jump checks, but also makes other things possible, Knock literally just opens locks better than any mundane lockpick could. It's not so much that Knock itself ruins games, but it's the easiest, most straightforward example of an I-Win Button. If you took Knock out of the game, Open Lock would become more important, but you wouldn't really lose anything else.

A better example is save-or-lose spells invalidating the Fighter, since all the damage dealt doesn't matter if the enemy just gets turned to stone as soon as the Wizard can be bothered to do so.

This may be a definitions thing again, but, to me, save or lose is not a win button, because it doesn't just work. Unlike the D&D Knock spell.

I've only ever seen one character - a Tainted Sorcerer I built in a game using the optional rule where a natural 20 wasn't an automatic success - who actually made SoD spells into win buttons.

It would be a waste of the wizard's spell to petrify an opponent the fighter is already damaging and occupying the opponent's actions. Better is to petrify an opponent otherwise not hurt or engaged to deny those actions. If the wizard is to attack the opponent the fighter is fighting use a lower level spell to contribute to damage attrition, debuff the opponent, or buff the fighter. Just because a wizard can do something doesn't mean he should. He's better off using the Wand of Knock when the rogue is not with him or failed to open the lock for whatever reason and can't try again.

As the proverb goes, when you have a hammer everything is a nail, but the issue is not the existence of the hammer.

Yay tactics! Maybe it's just because I usually play with the war gamer crowd, but I kinda expect people to just get this concept.

The recurring pattern in this thread seems to be "any argument I don't comprehend/sympathize with is invalid."

Over and over and over it's "I don't like Win Buttons because X, Y and Z." "Well X, Y and Z don't matter or are good things, so what's the problem?"

People have different opinions, fine. But this entire thread has been a circular debate about how each other's preferences are wrong.

Now, it's fair to say I'll reject any argument I don't understand. If I don't understand it, it has no value to helping me understand the hate win buttons receive. Kinda defeats the point of making the thread there.

And I've repeatedly pointed out where people's argument for their declared hatred of win buttons was misplaced. The most common example being when what they describe isn't a hate of win buttons, but a hate of game imbalance, particularly of one particular system. Hating something that happens to have win buttons is not the same as hating win buttons.

But, by all means, if you feel I've argued that someone's preferences are wrong, point it out to me! The bloody point of this thread is for me to learn, and if I learn some additional things in the process, like that I'm unknowingly attacking people's preferences instead of their ideas, bonus.

For the record, my contempt for Win Buttons is simply because to me they are the equivalent of playing an "escape the room" puzzle wherein on one side of the room there are a number of esoteric objects which can be cleverly combined to provide a variety of solutions... and on the other side of the room is a big green button labeled "RESOLVE" which just opens the door.

The standard counterargument in this thread seems to be "well then the GM shouldn't have put that kind of puzzle there in the first place." So in other words, the only scenarios allowed in an RPG are the very limited set of situations in which these Win Buttons don't apply? Why not just take those spells out then and just have a big long list of stories you're not allowed to tell?

Yes, I flatly do resent it. Because what stories I am or am not allowed to tell shouldn't be dictated by a frakking spell list.

Hmmm... You probably shouldn't bank on being able to tell the story of how the crippled boy (commoner 1) defeated the level 20 D&D party. It just doesn't work in the system. What stories you can reasonably tell is limited by the system, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Just like I can't reasonably tell the story of how Batman punched Superman in the face, and broke Superman's jaw (without the appropriate McGuffin).

That win buttons do an excellent job of pointing this out may be frustrating to you, but it is more of a guiding light for some, helping them to see what stories are valid to craft.

Myself, I don't care about that kind of thing. I consider it akin to railroading, which I personally hate. For me, I just craft the scenario, and the story is what you tell after the fact. Even if that's, "and then the party teleported the ring to Mount Doom. Boy, was the GM surprised".

There was talk upthread about system / setting disconnect - what you're describing doesn't sound like a hate of win buttons so much as system / story or system / railroad disconnect, and blaming the win buttons for pointing that out, to me.

As Mechalich said, there's also the question of required system mastery to not blow things up. Experienced players may well not select Teleport because they know that short-circuiting the adventure means that everybody will wind up sitting around with nothing to do.

Or experienced players may prioritize teleport, to communicate that they're bored of the rings. It all depends on preferences, and what parts of the game everyone cares about.

As was mentioned upthread, few real gamers "in the wild" in several of our rather extensive anecdotal experiences complain about teleport coming online.

That having been said, I've rarely seen parties that exclusively teleport from place to place, even when they technically could do so. Having teleport doesn't actually prevent people from using their feet / horses / whatever to travel.

I've seen GMs tripped up because the party had certain win buttons capabilities. I've seen GMs tripped up because the party didn't have certain win buttons capabilities. I've seen GMs tripped up because the party had certain win buttons capabilities, but didn't use them. I can't help but feel that the underlying problem is the GM assuming that the game will go a certain way.

[Drakevarg]

Now, it's fair to say I'll reject any argument I don't understand. If I don't understand it, it has no value to helping me understand the hate win buttons receive. Kinda defeats the point of making the thread there.

But, by all means, if you feel I've argued that someone's preferences are wrong, point it out to me! The bloody point of this thread is for me to learn, and if I learn some additional things in the process, like that I'm unknowingly attacking people's preferences instead of their ideas, bonus.

So your standpoint is that rather than making any sort of effort to understand people's positions, you should just declare such positions meaningless and shrug off anyone holding those positions as irrational idiots who don't understand their own motives, while waiting for someone to show up who simultaneously holds an opinion you're against for reasons you agree with?

This is not a good way to learn.

[Mutazoia]

So your standpoint is that rather than making any sort of effort to understand people's positions, you should just declare such positions meaningless and shrug off anyone holding those positions as irrational idiots who don't understand their own motives, while waiting for someone to show up who simultaneously holds an opinion you're against for reasons you agree with?

This is not a good way to learn.

The more you study, the more you know.The more you know, the more you forget. The more you forget, the less you know. The less you know, the less you forget. The less you forget, the more you know. So why learn?

[Pex]

It's pretty telling when an argument comes down to personal attacks from one side...

Depends on your definition of "attack". See 5E thread.

"Hello, Pot? This is Kettle speaking..."

Point.

My point still stands that someone not liking high level play doesn't make the game wrong.

[Hooligan]

Depends on your definition of "attack". See 5E thread.

High comedy

[Quertus]

So your standpoint is that rather than making any sort of effort to understand people's positions, you should just declare such positions meaningless and shrug off anyone holding those positions as irrational idiots who don't understand their own motives, while waiting for someone to show up who simultaneously holds an opinion you're against for reasons you agree with?

This is not a good way to learn.

No, I'll tell people directly why their argument doesn't "make the list". If I've misunderstood their position, they're welcome to help me understand.

That I'm a ****, and this (apparently) comes off as me attacking their preferences makes the process more offputting. How would you suggest going about getting to the heart of the matter with a group of people with different backgrounds, different experiences, different biases, and different styles of communication?

My method is, "convince me", and then, like an old punch card reader, outputting exactly what a given argument succeeded at convincing me. Well, I suppose I'd like to think my feedback is actually more helpful for producing a useful program than that, complete with "when you say X, this is what I hear" error messages and such. Plus the option to improve the compiler; i.e., teach this old dog some new tricks.

EDIT: And I don't think it's fair to describe it as an opinion I'm against. I'm against railroading - at least in any game I'm in, what you do in the privacy of your own game is your business - but reasons to hate win buttons is just something I don't get, not something I oppose.

[Drakevarg]

The idea that they have to "make the list" implies that the onus is on those who dislike Win Buttons to 'justify' themselves to you. They don't. You asked a question and they answered it, just because you don't understand their reasoning doesn't mean it wasn't a valid answer. You are trying to understand, not to be persuaded that it's the right, correct?

If you want to understand, it's your job to seek understanding. If a line of reasoning doesn't resonate with you, investigate it. Ask why they have a problem with those things, don't just make up your own conclusions as to why, that just comes off as dismissive. And if their reasoning boils down to personal preference, that doesn't need justification or rationalization either, it just is. Shrug it off as a taste thing and move on. But taste is still an entirely valid reason to not like them.

[BRC]

Sigh. Sounds like I need to add, "because humans are highly irrational beings" to my list of reasons I understand why people hate win buttons.

But this also touches on another bit of human foolishness: the concept of defining your character by its expected role.

In one group of my friends, I am "the programmer". But, in another group of my friends, we're all programmers. If I had defined myself as "the programmer", I'd be sorely disappointed with my experience with that group. But I'm not. The existence of all those other programmers doesn't make me any less me. Not does hanging out with someone smarter than me, or more of a **** than me, or even a fellow programmer who is smarter and more of a **** than me. Because I am more than just a collection of attributes.

Why would anyone be invested in the idea of having a particular role for their character, especially when it so obviously can cause such huge disappointment and dissatisfaction with an otherwise good game?

Humans are irrational beings. I find that the rational thing to do is often to acknowledge, and not judge each other's irrationality.


The Metaphor of your friends group doesn't really apply here, because you didn't make a conscious choice to join the group with a given role, your relationship with your friends is much more nuanced and complex than your characters role in a group could ever be, and you didn't really give anything up to be the "You" of your friend group.

Let's try a different metaphor. Let's say you and your friends are going to have a Potluck dinner together. Everybody is going to make something for the meal. You volunteer to provide dessert, and decide to make a Pie from scratch. It's hard work, but learning to cook something was the point of this potluck, and you're excited to share the result with your friends.

You arrive at the meal, and everybody has brought something they made. But, there's already a Pie there. "Oh", one of your Friends says "Yeah, I was at the store getting ingredients for my dish and I saw this pie. It looked really tasty so I went ahead and bought it".
Their pie is just as good, if not better, than your pie (it's made by a professional, after all). Had you known they were going to just buy a pie, you could have made something else. You gave up the chance to bring something else, say, brownies, because you wanted to make a Pie. As far as the meal goes, they've contributed everything you contributed and more.

Everybody else gets the fun of sharing their dish with the group, but you have to compare your dish with they pie your friend brought.

[Actana]

Personally I think a lot of issue with higher level game breaking powers is that the game doesn't really accommodate them nearly as well as it could. I don't recall much if any guidance on how to create effective and challenging higher level encounters and adventures. This can easily lead to the GM attempting to run lower level challenges for higher level characters because the system doesn't really tell you anything about how the game changes and what kind of challenges are made obsolete. It's easy to get the impression that the game runs the same throughout levels, just with fancier named and fluffed abilities and higher numbers - but still fundamentally remaining the same.

And when higher levels happen, the GM isn't necessarily expecting the players to pull out those dozen abilities that bypass encounters entirely, leaving the GM frustrated and feeling like the game is broken in some way. They're not necessarily wrong: the game is broken - but in a way where it fails to provide the necessary tools for a GM to effectively run the encounters and guidance on how to deal with it.

[Tinkerer]

You arrive at the meal, and everybody has brought something they made. But, there's already a Pie there. "Oh", one of your Friends says "Yeah, I was at the store getting ingredients for my dish and I saw this pie. It looked really tasty so I went ahead and bought it".
Their pie is just as good, if not better, than your pie (it's made by a professional, after all). Had you known they were going to just buy a pie, you could have made something else. You gave up the chance to bring something else, say, brownies, because you wanted to make a Pie. As far as the meal goes, they've contributed everything you contributed and more.

Before someone brings up expenditure of resources in response to this bear in mind that in the game which most people are talking about when they complain about win buttons in games had virtually no expenditure of resources for the win buttons. I recall many many conversations on this forum where people were saying "Well obviously if your group doesn't run up a Rope Trick after every encounter you are idiots and you are pissing off the magic users who are the only thing keeping your group relevant". This is in addition to magic item spam (what is the minimum cost that you can bring a Knock spell down to, 10gp per use?).

I don't think that there is a hatred for win buttons, I think there is a hatred for a specific group of builds from a specific game.

[Lord Raziere]

Before someone brings up expenditure of resources in response to this bear in mind that in the game which most people are talking about when they complain about win buttons in games had virtually no expenditure of resources for the win buttons. I recall many many conversations on this forum where people were saying "Well obviously if your group doesn't run up a Rope Trick after every encounter you are idiots and you are pissing off the magic users who are the only thing keeping your group relevant". This is in addition to magic item spam (what is the minimum cost that you can bring a Knock spell down to, 10gp per use?).

I don't think that there is a hatred for win buttons, I think there is a hatred for a specific group of builds from a specific game.

Don't try to change the subject, I know what I'm saying.

Solar Exalted? The I Win Button Exalted. Hate those to. "Screw you I just win." is the worst design choice you can possibly make. Whats the strategy in "screw you I win"? None. Give downsides and limitations, make using things have cost and strategy.

If one way is clearly the best, I just hate it because then I can't be alternate in a way thats just as good without ever resorting to it.

[HidesHisEyes]

I don't have time to read the whole thread so sorry if I'm covering old ground.

I think the abilities that problematic are the ones that make it hard for GMs to challenge the players. If my whole game depends on the players being obstructed by a chasm and they can fly over it then that can be incredibly frustrating.

I find this is a much bigger problem in one-shots where if the PCs manage to short-circuit the adventure then there isn't anything else for them to do, because I haven't prepared anything else. For these games I make sure I know what the PCs can and can't do at their level and know what I can and can't use to challenge them.

In an on-going game, if it's railroady (which I don't consider automatically a bad thing by the way) then you need to do the same. But in a long-running sandbox style game you just build the world the way you want to and accept that sometimes the players will short-circuit things. This is fine, because in this case the fun is unfolding over many sessions, and if the PCs are able to thwart the deceptive lying merchant in one corner of the world because they stumbled on the "zone of truth wand" in another, that's really no different from them using the fire sword against the ice elemental. It's all part of the game.

As for whether a specific ability "just works" or has some kind of diceroll to see if it works, this isn't really a problem either. Dice rolls aren't the only way of limiting an ability - if you're invisible and someone hears your footstep and throws some dirt at you then they've countered the invisibility. Also, in a lot of situations a dice roll provides a chance of shot-circuiting something anyway. A zone of truth wand might give you a 100% chance to thwart the lying merchant but if an Insight check can give you a 5% chance then that's no more acceptable to a GM who is counting on you being deceived by the guy.

[Tinkerer]

Don't try to change the subject, I know what I'm saying.

Solar Exalted? The I Win Button Exalted. Hate those to. "Screw you I just win." is the worst design choice you can possibly make. Whats the strategy in "screw you I win"? None. Give downsides and limitations, make using things have cost and strategy.

If one way is clearly the best, I just hate it because then I can't be alternate in a way thats just as good without ever resorting to it.

*chuckle* Yeah Solar Exalted is one of those cases of all Solar or no Solar. There they tried to have the I win buttons balance... how well they succeeded varies. Although in that game I thought they said all/nothing, much like in other games if you were playing gods it should be all gods or no gods. There will generally be "one best way" though that you can't be "just as good at" when dealing with numbers and this many options. The guideline isn't to go for "just as good at" but rather "on roughly the same level". For instance with the Knock spell (yes I'm still going on the Knock spell considering it's one of the true I win buttons) considering it's spell level I'd have set it up so that it automatically picks up to DC20 or 25 level locks.

And I must apologize, what I intended to say was that there isn't a general hatred of win buttons just a general hatred of how they are allocated. I didn't intend to say that no-one hates win buttons.

[Darth Ultron]

Personally I think a lot of issue with higher level game breaking powers is that the game doesn't really accommodate them nearly as well as it could. I don't recall much if any guidance on how to create effective and challenging higher level encounters and adventures. This can easily lead to the GM attempting to run lower level challenges for higher level characters because the system doesn't really tell you anything about how the game changes and what kind of challenges are made obsolete. It's easy to get the impression that the game runs the same throughout levels, just with fancier named and fluffed abilities and higher numbers - but still fundamentally remaining the same.

This has always been a bit of a problem with games like D&D. Player characters get powerful fast, to make the game fun and exciting, but then the game books are a bit vague on what to do for a high level game.

The books do have higher level monsters, traps, and spells.....but spaced out and vague. So even going by the book, a lot of DM's are just left hanging.

And it is only a hundred times worse with a ''Buddy DM'' that won't do ''bad'' or ''negative'' things to the PC's anyway as they don't ''feel'' it is right or don't want to ''make people sad'' or some such thing. A ton of DM's don't use traps, harmful spells, poison, harmful terrain, and lots of other stuff.

So at a high level the DM is still like ''ok, the monster is standing in the open field waiting for you awesome players to make the first move and attack''. Then the ''awesome'' players do their carefully crafted roll playing optimized things and combos and effects. Everyone ''oohhs' and ''ahhhs'' when Jimmy has a character...through some rules tomfoolery take like six five foot steps and make like three full attacks in one round. The players, of course, defeat the monster and high five.

Then the DM sits back and is like ''something feels wrong'', and maybe posts about it. And someone might post back ''well, just make things harder'' and the DM will go crazy and be like ''no! I must let my players walk all over me..."

[Doug Lampert]

Barricaded doors can not be knocked, strong winds can interfere with flight, jagged rocks can present a danger to those who fly and fail. Dispel magic can make you fall to your demise if you're attempting to fly in combat. And of course when there's an "invisibility" spell there's usually a "see invisibility" spell too.

To be sure it does trivialize a lot of obstacles

You won't fall to your demise in 3.5.

From the SRD: You can use dispel magic to end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, to end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area, or to counter another spellcaster’s spell. A dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired.

Also from the SRD: Should the spell duration expire while the subject is still aloft, the magic fails slowly. The subject floats downward 60 feet per round for 1d6 rounds. If it reaches the ground in that amount of time, it lands safely.

Dispelling fly is deadly if you are (a) thousands of feet in the air, (b) can't recast, and (c) didn't prepare feather fall.

[Lord Raziere]

*chuckle* Yeah Solar Exalted is one of those cases of all Solar or no Solar. There they tried to have the I win buttons balance... how well they succeeded varies. Although in that game I thought they said all/nothing, much like in other games if you were playing gods it should be all gods or no gods. There will generally be "one best way" though that you can't be "just as good at" when dealing with numbers and this many options. The guideline isn't to go for "just as good at" but rather "on roughly the same level". For instance with the Knock spell (yes I'm still going on the Knock spell considering it's one of the true I win buttons) considering it's spell level I'd have set it up so that it automatically picks up to DC20 or 25 level locks.

And I must apologize, what I intended to say was that there isn't a general hatred of win buttons just a general hatred of how they are allocated. I didn't intend to say that no-one hates win buttons.

Mm.

I just need my Abyssal and Infernal Exalted like things y'know? Those make me actually interested. I just know that when there is an Automatic Best Way, I don't want it and will reject it, and seek out anything that is an interesting alternative. At the same time, I'd rather not know that there is a best way so I can make whatever I want without worrying about it, really.

[Tinkerer]

Barricaded doors can not be knocked, strong winds can interfere with flight, jagged rocks can present a danger to those who fly and fail. Dispel magic can make you fall to your demise if you're attempting to fly in combat. And of course when there's an "invisibility" spell there's usually a "see invisibility" spell too.

To be sure it does trivialize a lot of obstacles

Also most barricaded doors will be affected by knock. Heck even welded shut doors are affected by knock. Winds need to be severe enough to the point where they are uprooting trees before they will affect flying creatures.

[icefractal]

There seems to be an assumption that once you're using any high-level magic, you're going full on TO and nothing can be a challenge, but IME that's not the case. More often, people are still working with limited resources and not auto-defeating foes, and normal obstacles still work fine - they just teleport or use other strategic abilities sometimes.

Now yes, some challenges are still obsoleted - being far away or up a tall cliff isn't a big deal at that point, for instance. But I don't see that as much different than lower level monsters being obsoleted. At 1st level, the Ogre Badlands were a big threat and you had to sneak or ally with a local group to get through. At 15th level, you can just stroll through openly. But on the other hand, at 1st level you didn't dare go to the Midnight Sea at all, and now you can. Some challenges disappear, some appear.

This only applies if the GM has some level of world consistency, admittedly. If things scale with you Oblivion-style then every challenge stays equally relevant. But at that point, why even have multiple levels, much less twenty of them?