D&D General Does WotC use its own DMG rules?

[Vaalingrade]

I found 4e was written encounter wise to be way too easy for my groups.

Did you then adjust them up as the system suggests for groups that want higher challenge?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just to remind people up-front here, I know a very limited amount about 5e, so I will not reference it at all here.



I'd argue that 4e made a far more strong attempt to keep monster design within the same bounds than any other D&D system I've seen; that's not saying it did not have exception based design, but at the same time, I kind of think it didn't want to; by which I mean as much as possible (and this was more true with later monster design than earlier) monsters were built to the same metric, even though they had to do so to at least some degree ad-hoc.

To describe that as "not the case" with prior editions is an understatement for the ages.

I think that made an enormous difference in why 4e's encounter mostly worked, and 3e's (especially as you advanced in level) was a trash-fire. It was, to some extent, despite it being exception based, but that's because to the degree they could they absolutely hosed down that factor.



Interesting. I'll never say that the 3e encounter building worked after a few low levels, but it was not what drove me out of the system; it was having to deal with the million special-case moving parts during actual play as the levels advanced. Life was too short.

Wasn't 4e the edition where "exception-based design" actually got first invoked?

General rules hold unless specific rules countermand them in narrow cases.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I want to hear what their actual design perimeters and intentions are. I've been asking for that for years now.

WotC adventures are written by lots of different people (different people write different chapters for adventure paths) and every adventure writer has their own approach to encounter design. WotC does not have one approach, it has dozens.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wasn't 4e the edition where "exception-based design" actually got first invoked?

General rules hold unless specific rules countermand them in narrow cases.

You mean they gave what they were doing a fancy name? I think so. But that doesn't mean it was really a first for D&D and RPGs. Though I haven't played D&D before 3rd Edition, so I don't really know how much of it was already practice in other editions.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why would a giant corporation bother to respond to my email for them to reveal their design "secrets"? What's in it for them?

They wouldn't. And if you know that... why do you keep asking the question OF US?!? You figure that if you're going to be annoyed, you're going to make damn sure everyone else here is going to be annoyed too?

 

[Micah Sweet]

WotC adventures are written by lots of different people (different people write different chapters for adventure paths) and every adventure writer has their own approach to encounter design. WotC does not have one approach, it has dozens.

The core books at least ought to have a single approach.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They wouldn't. And if you know that... why do you keep asking the question OF US?!? You figure that if you're going to be annoyed, you're going to make damn sure everyone else here is going to be annoyed too?

Why do you keep telling folks how unnecessary buying and following any particular rules document is at all? You are talking about your preference, and so am I.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The core books at least ought to have a single approach.

Why? The whole reason I buy adventures and stuff is to add some variety to the game. If it's all done by the same person (such as me) it gets samey and predictable.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Wasn't 4e the edition where "exception-based design" actually got first invoked?

Maybe in the D&D-sphere; but I saw it used elsewhere long before that, at least back to the early days of 3e.. Specifically in contrast to "effect-based design". In other words, the question is whether game elements are designed to a common metric, or designed largely ad-hoc (In D&D this is rampant, between spells, class abilities, monster abilities, feats and similar things).

(Many games attempt to live with a leg in both camps to various degrees of success).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why? The whole reason I buy adventures and stuff is to add some variety to the game. If it's all done by the same person (such as me) it gets samey and predictable.

Because IMO the core of a game should have a clearly explained and executed design philosophy. (Although offering alternatives in said text is also very good). Riffing off this in different and unexpected ways is what supplements are for.