Broken, is Broken Options

[BullZeye]

Why every time a person disagrees with a rule the rule is "Broken"? There's a dozen threads active at all times discussing how broken something is or isn't but only a couple doing just the opposite, saying how good something is. I don't want to see praise threads flooding in, but instead of using always the word "broken", how about using something different, like "I disagree with this rule" or whatever?

One can in most cases start a much more civilized conversation about almost anything by not starting the topic with such statements that something is *ucked up.

[Cheops]

One can in most cases start a much more civilized conversation about almost anything by not starting the topic with such statements that something is *ucked up.

But that's not what the internet is for! If it was we'd all already be living in Utopia!

[Draco18s]

TMs are broken!
Magic is broken!
Cyberware is to powerful!
Guns are broken!
This thread is broken!

RAAA!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Cain]

When most people say a rule is "broken", they mean it's causing them to not have fun in their games. It's breaking their enjoyment, their suspension of disbelief, their sense of game balance, or what-have-you. So, it's not a case of "I disagree with this rule", it's a case of "This rule is ***king up my game." Now, the positivie approach is to add: "What house rules can I come up with to fix this?"; but that doesn't change the fact that the rule is, for them, broken.

[BullZeye]

"What house rules can I come up with to fix this?"

So why not just post that part? It doesn't fix the problem by saying something is broken or *ucked up now does it.

*adds more food to troll-plate* Looks like there are some hungry buggers around again...

[Cain]

So why not just post that part? It doesn't fix the problem by saying something is broken or *ucked up now does it.

Depends. Some people just want to rant, and that's OK. Others know that if they just ask for house rules, they'll get buried under a bunch of "If you use the RAW, you wouldn't have a problem"; so they need to put up an explaination as well as a request. And sometimes, you need to play devil's advocate in order to start discussions.

[Larme]

When most people say a rule is "broken", they mean it's causing them to not have fun in their games. It's breaking their enjoyment, their suspension of disbelief, their sense of game balance, or what-have-you. So, it's not a case of "I disagree with this rule", it's a case of "This rule is ***king up my game." Now, the positivie approach is to add: "What house rules can I come up with to fix this?"; but that doesn't change the fact that the rule is, for them, broken.

You got it. Broken is a matter of opinion. It's broken if it messes up your game. I just wish people would be more flexible about it. Instead of arguing that anyone who thinks the rule is ok is wrong, they should just say "hey, I want to fix it, and I'd like advice on how, I don't want to debate whether it needs fixing in the first place." That would save a lot of grief.

Objectively, I would say that something is broken if it has a benefit without a roughly proportional cost. You can't put costs and benefits on a scale or add them up mathematically in Shadowrun, so it has to be a rough estimate. For instance, airburst grenade launchers aren't broken because while they're powerful and fairly inexpensive, they are Forbidden and they make a loud boom. Not that I want to debate grenade launchers, but that's what I mean about rough proportionality. Each pro side of the thing has to have a con side. If it does, then I submit that it is not an objectively broken thing. It might still mess up your game, you might not like it, it might still need to be house ruled at your table, but that doesn't mean it's universally broken for everyone. "You" not being Cain in this instance, you in the general sense.

[nezumi]

This thread is broken.

[deek]

So why not just post that part? It doesn't fix the problem by saying something is broken or *ucked up now does it.

*adds more food to troll-plate* Looks like there are some hungry buggers around again...

Some of us do...

There have been a handful of times that I've simply stated a situation that I came across in-game, how I handled it and then posted it here to find out what other people have done in their games. So far, I've gotten 2-3 responses on how other GMs handle it at their table and perhaps one or two thoughts on how it could be done (but have not actually been used).

I would certainly agree, that when someone asks about a rule in context, everything seems more civilized. Its when someone is just reading through a book, don't like the rule and then post her to point it out and talk about all the reasons it sucks that we get things flowing out of control... I really don't find many posts here, at least rules wise, that are backed up with saying they happened during gameplay.

[BullZeye]

I really don't find many posts here, at least rules wise, that are backed up with saying they happened during gameplay.

Yep, many of these things are those theoretical builds/situations that never reached the game. Yes, one can make a pornomancer or such weirdness build but how many would actually want to play a character that can do something like that?

*looks at the empty plate and refills it for the trolls*

[BlueMax]

If this were a CCG, you could also add NERF.

Cards are either Broken, have been nerfed, or nobody cares about them.

BlueMax
/ain't got the money for that habit

[Traul]

For instance, airburst grenade launchers aren't broken

Bad example : airburst IS broken (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif) Your definition is quite narrow as it only takes game balance into account, but there are many things that are at least as important, such as the consistency between fluff and rules. For the airburst system, the problem is that the deviation decay drops to -1 per success instead of -2. So if you're good enough with your grenade launcher, you can achieve closer shot without airburst than with. Can you imagine all the weapon specialists turning of their hi-tech targetting device because they're better off without it? I can't.

[BlueMax]

Can you imagine all the weapon specialists turning of their hi-tech targetting device because they're better off without it? I can't.

Use the Force Luke?

Therefore it would make sense for Adepts?

Sorry, you asked.

BlueMax
/Not trying to be confrontational
//just funny
/// yes, its bad humor

[Larme]

Bad example : airburst IS broken (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif) Your definition is quite narrow as it only takes game balance into account, but there are many things that are at least as important, such as the consistency between fluff and rules. For the airburst system, the problem is that the deviation decay drops to -1 per success instead of -2. So if you're good enough with your grenade launcher, you can achieve closer shot without airburst than with. Can you imagine all the weapon specialists turning of their hi-tech targetting device because they're better off without it? I can't.

No, balance has nothing at all to do with realism. Nothing. At. All. They are two separate, unrelated questions. In fact, the thing you point to is a balancing factor. Airbursts have the advantage of going off when you fire them, but that is balanced by less accuracy.

Now, you seem to be talking semantics, and that is a HUGE problem with the work broken. Nobody agrees on what it means. I've had people tell me that things are broken when they are not powerful enough.

So, not only do I propose an objective, workable definition of balance, I also propose that we don't use the word broken anymore. It has so many meanings that are so unrelated to each other, that it's a worthless term. We might as well talk about good and evil. This is a gaming board, not a philosophy board, so we should kill and desecrate the bodies of such worthless adjectives as "broken." There is balanced, unbalanced, fun, not fun, but there is no such thing as Broken. Everyone defines it differently, nobody can agree on a definition, so for god's sake let's all save our sanity and pretend it's not even a word.

[Heath Robinson]

Larme,

Grenade Launcher grenades are contact fused.

Minigrenades are specifically designed for use with grenade launchers. They are set to arm when they have traveled 5 meters from their point of origin and explode on impact (unless using an airburst link, see p. 322).

I'd also like to point out that I don't say that things are broken. I try to state my frank beliefs about a topic that compel me to suggest changes. Sometimes that may be "these rules are badly designed" - I will state them without saying "in my opinion", because you should just be reading that in by yourself. There's no objective game, there's just a bunch of rules that mean different things to everyone.

There is no such game as Shadowrun.

[Muspellsheimr]

I really don't find many posts here, at least rules wise, that are backed up with saying they happened during gameplay.

Because saying so is not required. Nearly all of my house errata has been made because of gameplay experience. I have as much house errata as there is official errata, & guess what? The game is significantly better balanced because of it.

[Cain]

It's also not necessary to have something in your games to know it's broken. How many people here ban pornomancers? Versus how many of us have actually had one in our games?

Sometimes, just knowing that a rule is theoretically broken is enough. You don't need to take cyanide to know it's bad for you.

[Larme]

I'd also like to point out that I don't say that things are broken. I try to state my frank beliefs about a topic that compel me to suggest changes. Sometimes that may be "these rules are badly designed" - I will state them without saying "in my opinion", because you should just be reading that in by yourself. There's no objective game, there's just a bunch of rules that mean different things to everyone.

I don't think you should have to write "in my opinion" every time you make a declarative statement about a rules issue. What you do need to do is, if someone says "you mean, in your opinion right?" you need to say "Yes, of course I'm talking about my own opinion." The thing that starts flame wars is someone saying "No, this is not my opinion, this is the only way to decide the issue." I dunno how you conduct yourself on the forums, but as a general matter, that's how it needs to be. Failing to make that basic admission leads to pages being 13+ pages long and being locked.

Because saying so is not required. Nearly all of my house errata has been made because of gameplay experience. I have as much house errata as there is official errata, & guess what? The game is significantly better balanced because of it.

...in your opinion. See? Now we all feel validated. You get to tell us how your game, to you, is a lot better with all of your changes. But it's no longer an offensive slur on everyone who disagrees with you, you're no longer insinuating that we play the game wrong or that the game we love is too shitty to play as-is. All it takes is those three words and everyone's happy.

[Eleint]

I think the main issue is this: people mean different things when they say broken. I can think of the following definitions:

• Comparative Worth: I think X gives too much oomph compared to Y or Z. Thus it's broken.
• Counterintuitive: X is meant to do Y, but it really does Z. Thus, it's broken.
• Preference: I do not like or enjoy X. Therefore for me it's broken.

Example of the first might be the age-old Bows debate. Example of the second might be the now-optional hack in SR4A to direct combat spells. Example of the third might be the presence of IEs in the setting. There's a strong element of subjective option in this, though some are more than others. Preference is entirely opinion, while Comparative Worth and Counterintuitiveness is slightly less so -- you can at least show with game mechanics why you think X or Y. But in the end, a lot of it is opinion.

I think that's why there's a lot of arguments. People mean different things when they say broken.

[Heath Robinson]

I just did a display-by-post search for "Broken". Entertaining results.

Eleint, you're missing one more meaning of the word broken.

• Nonfunctional. The ruleset does not function in this regard.

For example, the rule that added the Hits to the Drain Value for Direct Combat spells was broken. It didn't tell you what to do when you're using Area spells.

[Larme]

I think that's why there's a lot of arguments. People mean different things when they say broken.

That's why, henceforth, the term "broken" shall be abolished. Anyone using it to describe rules shall be fed to the almighty Sarlaac!

[Heath Robinson]

Can we also abolish the acronyms for the Anniversary reprint (and the corresponding errata)? I'd like to be able to say SR4 without referring to old versions of the game. I've, personally, stopped using SR4A precisely because using it implies some actual difference between SR4 last year and this year.

[Larme]

Can we also abolish the acronyms for the Anniversary reprint (and the corresponding errata)? I'd like to be able to say SR4 without referring to old versions of the game. I've, personally, stopped using SR4A precisely because using it implies some actual difference between SR4 last year and this year.

Seconded! If we stopped acting like it was a different game, people might actually download the free errata and stop complaining about how they're being forced to buy a whole new core book (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

[deek]

I'm good with calling it SR4. From here on out, that's what I'll will use...and I will no longer use the term broken. I feel warm and fuzzy already:)

[BlueMax]

Until SR4A is actually in print, perhaps it should have a unique marker. As far as I know the Shadowrun run at Origins and Gencon, with Catalyst support, will be without the Anniversary Edition changes.

Therefore, at this time there are two entities. The present and the future.

BlueMax