D&D 5E Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

[Balesir]

The key word here is "guidelines". The older editions were forgiving enough in their math (and the style of play was different as well) that if you threw something at the party they in theory couldn't handle they might get lucky and handle it anyway, or just run away. But the curve was much flatter.

3e (and, from what I gather, 4e) made the curve much steeper.

Well, firstly, per my previous post, I think it has always been possible to view the "Dungeon Level Encounters"/CR/Encounter Level stuff as guidelines. The "steeper curve" idea I don't really see from experience in either playing 3.x or DMing 4E - although they had different ways of handling it.

In 3.5 it was certainly true that uber-high level critters like devils and demons could kill low level characters if they wanted to, but the thing was that they had no reason to do so within the game system and world whatsoever. I once saw a devil taunting low level PCs ("playing with its food", as we termed it) because it had no conceivable prospect of getting either experience or any benefit for its own "side" in the planar wars by killing them.

In 4E, you wuld be surprised at how resilient PCs can be to very much higher level encounters. It's more chancy, to be sure, but the PCs themselves are really quite tough.

The thing about "monster type scaling" in 4E doesn't upset this, particularly - but the reason for it is somewhat different. A level 17 standard Hill Giant, a level 13 Elite Hill giant, a level 8 Solo Hill Giant and a level 25 Minion Hill Giant are all worth the same XP in an encounter, might represent the same Hill Giant* and are roughly as troublesome to kill and as damaging to a party of fixed level. The reasons for treating them differently is really not to do with making an easier or harder challenge - it is to do with making encounters fun and interesting. A party of Level 17 characters against a L17 Standard Hill giant will kill an individual giant easily enough, but there is a chance they will miss it, it will take a few (~3) good hits before it drops and it will have a fair chance of hitting them for good damage. The same party against a L25 Minion will kill it as soon as they hit it, but will be missing a lot. Meanwhile it will be hitting them reliably for fairly minor damage. The combination of them whiffing a lot and constantly getting hit will rapidly get tedious - but the average effect in terms of damage taken by PCs and time to kill the monster will be similar. Likewise, the same party against an Elite L13 Hill Giant will kill it in roughly the same number of turns and take roughly equivalent damage - but they will hit with almost every blow and it will miss them a lot (but do lots of damage, many times, when it hits). Again, not as fun a fight as the Standard. So the recommendation is to use roughly same-level enemies - not out of some sort of "fairness" fetish, but because battles will be more interesting that way. If you want to ignore that advice, you can.



*: The question of having the same creature have a variable number of hit points (L25 minion and L17 standard as the same creature) was brought up above. This is simply a question of how one visualises hit points. They have always, as far as I'm concerned, been a "fuzzy" concept anyway, so adding in a "quantum" element of a sort of "uncertainty principle" to them seems non-problematic. You can either pin a monster down to be easier to hit - in which case it has more hit points - or you can pin it down to having fewer hit points - in which case it becomes more difficult to hit. That is the way the 4E world works and, since you can't actually see hit points as I envision the game world, it makes perfect sense that it could be so.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In other words, it means exactly the same as an at-level, standard monster in 4E (the "same level NPC" would be an elite). The only substantive difference I see is that 4E levels actually bear some resemblance to an accurate gauge of the monster's capability.

The real substantive difference is that "level" has an inconsistent meaning in 4E, but that's par for the course when it comes to consistency of terminology. Not only was a level 8 monster not the equivalent of a level 8 PC, but it could vary wildly depending on whether that "level 8" monster was a minion or an elite or a solo. And at that point, why even have levels?

 

[Balesir]

The real substantive difference is that "level" has an inconsistent meaning in 4E, but that's par for the course when it comes to consistency of terminology.

"Level" has an inconsistent meaning in every edition of D&D. A Level 5 spell cast by a Level 11 magic-user, anyone?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

*: The question of having the same creature have a variable number of hit points (L25 minion and L17 standard as the same creature) was brought up above. This is simply a question of how one visualises hit points. They have always, as far as I'm concerned, been a "fuzzy" concept anyway, so adding in a "quantum" element of a sort of "uncertainty principle" to them seems non-problematic. You can either pin a monster down to be easier to hit - in which case it has more hit points - or you can pin it down to having fewer hit points - in which case it becomes more difficult to hit. That is the way the 4E world works and, since you can't actually see hit points as I envision the game world, it makes perfect sense that it could be so.

Which is a real kick to the sim, since it implies that there is no objective reality which is even attempted to being modeled. If you visualize hit points as being less fuzzy, and an actual measure of how many arrow hits you can take before falling unconscious and bleeding out, then this sort of uncertainty is particularly irksome. Regardless of exactly how tough something is, there should be a consistent number of arrows that it can take before dropping (give or take a few). It should never take one arrow sometimes (high level minion), or two dozen arrows another time (low level solo).

 

[LostSoul]

I find that one interesting element of good encounter-building guidelines is that the players can use them as well as the DM. In other words, they allow the players to determine the difficulty of the encounter; if they have the opportunity to choose between different encounters, they can do so with relative accuracy.

How the players gain this information is an interesting design or play-style question. Can the players read the monster manual? Can they make skill checks to gain this information? Do they have to experience various difficulties through play? Can they gather (accurate) rumours? Does the DM just tell them? Does the game make it obvious (e.g. the deeper you go into a dungeon, the more difficult it becomes)? etc.

I think good encounter-building guidelines are play-style independent; I think they can support various styles well, though some care needs to be taken in how they are used to make sure they line up with your priorities for play.

 

[Imaro]

The thing about "monster type scaling" in 4E doesn't upset this, particularly - but the reason for it is somewhat different. A level 17 standard Hill Giant, a level 13 Elite Hill giant, a level 8 Solo Hill Giant and a level 25 Minion Hill Giant are all worth the same XP in an encounter, might represent the same Hill Giant* and are roughly as troublesome to kill and as damaging to a party of fixed level. The reasons for treating them differently is really not to do with making an easier or harder challenge - it is to do with making encounters fun and interesting. A party of Level 17 characters against a L17 Standard Hill giant will kill an individual giant easily enough, but there is a chance they will miss it, it will take a few (~3) good hits before it drops and it will have a fair chance of hitting them for good damage. The same party against a L25 Minion will kill it as soon as they hit it, but will be missing a lot. Meanwhile it will be hitting them reliably for fairly minor damage. The combination of them whiffing a lot and constantly getting hit will rapidly get tedious - but the average effect in terms of damage taken by PCs and time to kill the monster will be similar. Likewise, the same party against an Elite L13 Hill Giant will kill it in roughly the same number of turns and take roughly equivalent damage - but they will hit with almost every blow and it will miss them a lot (but do lots of damage, many times, when it hits). Again, not as fun a fight as the Standard. So the recommendation is to use roughly same-level enemies - not out of some sort of "fairness" fetish, but because battles will be more interesting that way. If you want to ignore that advice, you can.

I'm not sure I'm buying this... and I don't think my experiences with 4e match up with what you are claiming here... Given the action economy of a five person party (5 attks per round vs. 1) and taking mid level heroes who have a number of resources for re-rolls, bonuses on to-hit rolls, action points, etc... I find it hard to believe the minion wouldn't be quicker to die... they only need to connect once to kill it.

 

[Balesir]

Which is a real kick to the sim, since it implies that there is no objective reality which is even attempted to being modeled.

Read what I wrote carefully. If you claim this, you are saying that quantum mechanics do not model any objective reality. I have a real world here that says you are wrong to do so. This schema models an objective world just as much as modern science does. It's just a different world.

If you visualize hit points as being less fuzzy, and an actual measure of how many arrow hits you can take before falling unconscious and bleeding out, then this sort of uncertainty is particularly irksome. Regardless of exactly how tough something is, there should be a consistent number of arrows that it can take before dropping (give or take a few). It should never take one arrow sometimes (high level minion), or two dozen arrows another time (low level solo).

The idea that any individual in the real world could reliably take a number of hits from war arrows before "bleeding out" is frankly preposterous. I'm not sure, but the real world seems to be the basis of your argument, here - in which case it is factually and logically flawed. If, on the other hand, your argument is not predicated on some sort of real world conception or model, I would ask "what is it based on?" What is it about the imaginary world of D&D that leads you to believe that creatures therein (a) are physically hit each time they lose hit points and (b) have to be physically hit a certain number of times before they are rendered hors-de-combat?

 

[howandwhy99]

This really is not true, howandwhy, and seems very ignorant of well, collaborative storytelling. Storytelling can very easy be collaborative, and competition between players is not a major element of D&D. There is absolutely nothing that puts "a good game" and "a good story" in absolute opposition. There are conflicting elements, but there's a lot of stuff that lines up, too, and it's just dead, plain, wrong to assert that storytelling conflicts with collaboration.

I don't see how you get from what I posted to thinking I'm suggesting collaboration and storytelling are in conflict. But conflict as a central tenet of postmodern belief begins with the acceptance that all personal expression is oppression of other's expressions. A good game and a good story aren't in opposition, they are simply two utterly different identities. Two completely different directions of living. Can they blur? Sure, but telling "good stories" means not playing a game well unless the only goal of that game is to tell good stories. Which has nothing to do with the hobby or RPGs or RPG design.

You want enough simulationism that it doesn't seem blatantly gamist, that it doesn't actively pull the average player out of the world to think about the metagame aspects, but it should be simplistic, straightforward stuff, and if there is a conflict between simulation and game-fun, the latter should typically win out.

D&D should be a game. Leave simulation to storytelling where it belongs. I want the game to put a code behind the DM screen so players can game the what is related to them again.

 

[Balesir]

I'm not sure I'm buying this... and I don't think my experiences with 4e match up with what you are claiming here... Given the action economy of a five person party (5 attks per round vs. 1) and taking mid level heroes who have a number of resources for re-rolls, bonuses on to-hit rolls, action points, etc... I find it hard to believe the minion wouldn't be quicker to die... they only need to connect once to kill it.

Versus its AC of around 37, with their ~+20 to hit (21 vs AC, 19 vs NADs, roughly), needing ~17+ to hit. Compare this with the Standard: AC ~29 (hit on 8-10), hit points ~199 with PCs doing around 35 damage per hit, on average. The minion does 16 damage on a hit - which it does at roughly +30 (hitting most PCs on any but a 1). The Standard does ~30 damage on a hit, but only does so at around +22 (hitting on around a 9+).

The Standard is a bit tougher to kill - I picked a Paragon level Brute as base, which was not a good choice on my part - but they are really not that far apart. The action points, re-rolls and so on apply as much to the Standard as the Minion - re-rolls maybe more on the Minion, action points arguably more on the Standard.

P.S. This may seem at odds with common experience of 4E, because you typically don't face L17 Standard monsters and L25 Minions with characters at the same level. More usual would be L17 standards and L17 Minions - in which case, of course, the Minions drop faster. That's only natural - they are the equivalent of somewhere around L9 "Standard" monsters.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If, on the other hand, your argument is not predicated on some sort of real world conception or model, I would ask "what is it based on?" What is it about the imaginary world of D&D that leads you to believe that creatures therein (a) are physically hit each time they lose hit points and (b) have to be physically hit a certain number of times before they are rendered hors-de-combat?

Getting hurt is the primary outcome of someone hitting you. Falling unconscious is the primary outcome of getting hurt a lot. It's a very straightforward concept, recognizable as a simplification of reality. Go put on a suit of chain armor, and I'll beat on you with a mace until you fall down. It will probably take more than one hit, and less than an infinite number of hits.

If you look at D&D, prior to 4E, there was basically nothing that could make you lose hit points that wasn't something doing physical damage to your body. Swords, fire, and falling were all hit point damage. Psychic attacks didn't do hit point damage, unless it was physically setting you on fire. Marching for days on end would be fatigue and exhaustion. Fear was its own thing. Only injury was represented as hit point damage.