D&D General Explain Bounded Accuracy to Me (As if I Was Five)

[Vaalingrade]

Every time you want to use much more powerful or weaker foes you actually need to change their stats so that they can be fought.

Which is super easy to do because of the way monsters are designed based on level rather than a CR the derives from the design. Everything recalculates reliably based on the level.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Which is super easy to do because of the way monsters are designed based on level rather than a CR the derives from the design. Everything recalculates reliably based on the level.

As long as you have several different level versions of each monster. That is just way more work than having the same statblock work for any level. Regardless, the rapidly escalating numbers literally are not needed. 4e actively avoids having situations where they would have an impact, by having level appropriate versions of monsters. So why the hell have the escalating numbers in the first place? It is just bad and confused design to first create such escalation than then a workaround to negate its impact.

 

[Charlaquin]

As long as you have several different level versions of each monster. That is just way more work than having the same statblock work for any level. Regardless, the rapidly escalating numbers literally are not needed. 4e actively avoids having situations where they would have an impact, by having level appropriate versions of monsters. So why the hell have the escalating numbers in the first place? It is just bad and confused design to first create such escalation than then a workaround to negate its impact.

Eh, it’s a different design choice, with different benefits and different drawbacks.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

The majority of RPGs don't actually worry as much about "balance" as D&D does, because they recognize that RPGs are a game where balance is actually kind of unimportant.

I had come around to agreeing with designer John Wick about 'balance'. A lot of times, when people complain about balance, what they're REALLY complaining about is spotlight. Of course you seem underpowered and underbalanced if the GM never lets you have the moment to shine or another PC does exactly what you do better -- Peacemaker and Bloodsport in The Suicide Squad felt uncomfortably like some tables I've been at.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It’s not “we can’t prevent abuse so we shouldn’t even try,” it’s “let’s not let the potential for abuse hamper our designs.” One of the weak points of 3e was that in trying to create a unified experience across tables, they ended up with an overwhelming mess of hard rules for hyper-specific cases. It’s to 5e’s credit that it moved away from this in favor of embracing flexibility and allowing different DMs to tailor their own games to their own preferences.

Except that's exactly what it is. I have, many times, proposed taking reasonable steps to address problems; putting in effort to help prevent issues rather than totally eliminate them; etc. And nearly every time, someone tells me there's no point, you can't fix the problem completely.

The argument is absolutely the perfect solution fallacy: after all, you yourself just said, "no system is GM-proof, and I can’t control anyone’s behavior but my own." Since we cannot GM-proof the system, we shouldn't even try to make better rules that are harder to mess up without ill will--but simply with mistaken beliefs, wrongheaded efforts, or accidental perverse incentives, etc.

That doesn’t mean there’s no room for improvement in how the game teaches itself to new DMs. I’m very much looking forward to the revised DMG to help address this problem.

It's not just in how it teaches GMs. You can, in fact, actually design rules which make abuse less likely. They cannot stop intentional malfeasance. You cannot use a system to protect players against a determinedly bad GM.

But you can do a LOT to protect players (and indeed, the GMs themselves!) from accidental, well-intentioned faults or damaging errors. Better rules design does, in fact, have ways to address some of these things. But because we all recognize that it is impossible to "GM-proof" a system, people trot out the perfect solution fallacy as the justification for never even bothering to think about how we might build up resilience against mediocrity and well-intentioned unwise ideas.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As long as you have several different level versions of each monster. That is just way more work than having the same statblock work for any level. Regardless, the rapidly escalating numbers literally are not needed. 4e actively avoids having situations where they would have an impact, by having level appropriate versions of monsters. So why the hell have the escalating numbers in the first place? It is just bad and confused design to first create such escalation than then a workaround to negate its impact.

If you care about that, why would you ever apply such techniques?

This is literally you saying, "This optional tool exists, and because it exists it ruins everything always!" No, it doesn't....you just have particular preferences which mean you shouldn't use that tool. If you never use "level-appropriate versions" of anything, but always use them consistently whenever they appear, you will necessarily prevent any of these problems from occurring. Admittedly, this will probably result in some less-than-interesting combats now and then, but that's explicitly what you're asking for, fights that are a fixed amount of challenge regardless of how strong or weak the PCs may become.

Don't use the tool, and suddenly everything is fine. And it's not like you'd be suffering for lack of monster choice. There's zillions of monsters in 4e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except that's exactly what it is. I have, many times, proposed taking reasonable steps to address problems; putting in effort to help prevent issues rather than totally eliminate them; etc. And nearly every time, someone tells me there's no point, you can't fix the problem completely.

The argument is absolutely the perfect solution fallacy: after all, you yourself just said, "no system is GM-proof, and I can’t control anyone’s behavior but my own." Since we cannot GM-proof the system, we shouldn't even try to make better rules that are harder to mess up without ill will--but simply with mistaken beliefs, wrongheaded efforts, or accidental perverse incentives, etc.


It's not just in how it teaches GMs. You can, in fact, actually design rules which make abuse less likely. They cannot stop intentional malfeasance. You cannot use a system to protect players against a determinedly bad GM.

But you can do a LOT to protect players (and indeed, the GMs themselves!) from accidental, well-intentioned faults or damaging errors. Better rules design does, in fact, have ways to address some of these things. But because we all recognize that it is impossible to "GM-proof" a system, people trot out the perfect solution fallacy as the justification for never even bothering to think about how we might build up resilience against mediocrity and well-intentioned unwise ideas.

Do you know a way to do what you're asking without resorting to hard restrictions on what the GM is and isn't allowed to do, beyond what is already on the books?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you care about that, why would you ever apply such techniques?

This is literally you saying, "This optional tool exists, and because it exists it ruins everything always!" No, it doesn't....you just have particular preferences which mean you shouldn't use that tool. If you never use "level-appropriate versions" of anything, but always use them consistently whenever they appear, you will necessarily prevent any of these problems from occurring. Admittedly, this will probably result in some less-than-interesting combats now and then, but that's explicitly what you're asking for, fights that are a fixed amount of challenge regardless of how strong or weak the PCs may become.

Don't use the tool, and suddenly everything is fine. And it's not like you'd be suffering for lack of monster choice. There's zillions of monsters in 4e.

What I am saying that 4e design doesn't really need wildly escalating numbers and actively tries to negate their impact. So that being the case, it is silly to put such escalating numbers in the game to begin with.

 

[Charlaquin]

Except that's exactly what it is. I have, many times, proposed taking reasonable steps to address problems; putting in effort to help prevent issues rather than totally eliminate them; etc. And nearly every time, someone tells me there's no point, you can't fix the problem completely.

The argument is absolutely the perfect solution fallacy: after all, you yourself just said, "no system is GM-proof, and I can’t control anyone’s behavior but my own." Since we cannot GM-proof the system, we shouldn't even try to make better rules that are harder to mess up without ill will--but simply with mistaken beliefs, wrongheaded efforts, or accidental perverse incentives, etc.

No, no, you misunderstand. I think the rules, as written, are mostly quite good. They express, pretty explicitly, how they are intended to be used, and when I use them that way, the results are very good. I don’t think that changing the rules to make them harder for DMs who aren’t me to misuse would improve them. It’s not “if I can’t fix the problem completely there’s no point,” it’s “I think the treatment would do more harm than the illness.” I’m certainly open to discussing ways we might better advise DMs on how to utilize the system well, but I am not open to changing the design to make it harder to use poorly, as I think doing so carries too much risk of making it worse when used appropriately.

It's not just in how it teaches GMs. You can, in fact, actually design rules which make abuse less likely. They cannot stop intentional malfeasance. You cannot use a system to protect players against a determinedly bad GM.

But you can do a LOT to protect players (and indeed, the GMs themselves!) from accidental, well-intentioned faults or damaging errors. Better rules design does, in fact, have ways to address some of these things.

Certainly, you can design a system to be harder to use wrong by accident. However, doing so will necessarily have an impact on the system‘s potential when used well. Lowering the floor is well and good in theory, but not if the ceiling gets lowered in the process.

But because we all recognize that it is impossible to "GM-proof" a system, people trot out the perfect solution fallacy as the justification for never even bothering to think about how we might build up resilience against mediocrity and well-intentioned unwise ideas.

Let me clarify: I don’t think a “GM-proof” system would be desirable, even if such a thing were possible. I think artistic mediums are at their best when tuned to maximize their strengths rather than to minimize their weaknesses. A hypothetical “GM-proof” RPG system would, at its best, just be a video game with no graphics and a horribly clunky user interface. Better, in my mind, to design our RPG systems to take advantage of the flexibility being run by a thinking human affords. Doing so will necessarily entail greater risk of accidental misuse, but it also creates greater potential for excellence when used well, and I think that’s a more than acceptable tradeoff.

 

[pemerton]

As long as you have several different level versions of each monster. That is just way more work than having the same statblock work for any level. Regardless, the rapidly escalating numbers literally are not needed. 4e actively avoids having situations where they would have an impact, by having level appropriate versions of monsters. So why the hell have the escalating numbers in the first place? It is just bad and confused design to first create such escalation than then a workaround to negate its impact.

What I am saying that 4e design doesn't really need wildly escalating numbers and actively tries to negate their impact. So that being the case, it is silly to put such escalating numbers in the game to begin with.

The point of the escalating numbers is to generate play that unfolds through the three tiers so as to yield "the story of D&D">

You could take out all the half-level bonuses to attack and defences and the game would, mechanically, play the same but it wouldn't yield the same story. And elements of the fiction would stop making sense - eg why is my demigod still finding a single giant a threat?

The approach that WotC used in their publications, when they wanted to change how the fiction of the tiers relates to the mechanics of the tiers, was to change the fiction rather than the mechanics. In Neverwinter, new monsters are presented that provide the fiction of paragon tier in mechanically heroic tier terms. In Dark Sun, new opponents (the Sorcerer-Kings) are presented that provide the fiction of paragon tier in mechanically epic terms.