Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3437344" data-attributes="member: 22779">heh, tell that to the flaming rows we used to have around the table.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Honestly, I think it's a bit of two things.&nbsp; One, it's an Internet thing with so many people having so much information and constantly reexamining the same thing.&nbsp; The second is that game design concepts are much more open now than previously.&nbsp; We have explanations for why something is so. Take the CR system and compare it to the xp award system in previous editions.&nbsp; Previously an orc was worth 15 xp.&nbsp; (I think)&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; We have no real idea.&nbsp; I remember in 2e looking at the table in the front of the Monstrous Compendium and thinking, &quot;Hey, isn't infravision a non-magical special ability?&nbsp; That's worth a +1HD.&nbsp; If I give the orc a bow, doesn't that equate with another +1 according to this table which says that ranged attacks are +1 HD?&quot;&nbsp; But, honestly, there wasn't a whole lot of guidance for why an orc was worth what it was worth.&nbsp; Or any other creature for that matter.&nbsp; Creature X was worth xp Y.&nbsp; And that was the end of the story.Now, we have sidebars and other text, right in the DMG, never mind other sources, discussing CR and how it relates to a host of other effects like adventure design and what have you.&nbsp; While CR is hardly a science, it is an attempt at a systematic approach to adventure design.&nbsp; Whether it is successful or not is certainly debatable, but it is an attempt.Like an_idol_mind, I have found the ruleset to be more than robust enough to handle a lot of changes.&nbsp; My World's largest Dungeon group had no arcane casters for example.&nbsp; No cleric either (favoured soul instead).&nbsp; The group size varied from 3 to 7.&nbsp; Yet, the module played reasonably well most of the time.&nbsp; The malfunctions that I ran into were typically due to poor application of the rules rather than going outside of assumptions.&nbsp; ((A personal beef of mine is the Big Monster in a Small Room syndrome that plagues the module where you have six Minotaurs in a 20x20 room for example))But, because 3e was designed by designers, its approach is more systematic than previous editions.&nbsp; Again, that will meet with praise or disappointment depending on the user, but, I don't think that that's an unfair assessment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3437344, member: 22779"] heh, tell that to the flaming rows we used to have around the table. :) Honestly, I think it's a bit of two things. One, it's an Internet thing with so many people having so much information and constantly reexamining the same thing. The second is that game design concepts are much more open now than previously. We have explanations for why something is so. Take the CR system and compare it to the xp award system in previous editions. Previously an orc was worth 15 xp. (I think) Why? We have no real idea. I remember in 2e looking at the table in the front of the Monstrous Compendium and thinking, "Hey, isn't infravision a non-magical special ability? That's worth a +1HD. If I give the orc a bow, doesn't that equate with another +1 according to this table which says that ranged attacks are +1 HD?" But, honestly, there wasn't a whole lot of guidance for why an orc was worth what it was worth. Or any other creature for that matter. Creature X was worth xp Y. And that was the end of the story. Now, we have sidebars and other text, right in the DMG, never mind other sources, discussing CR and how it relates to a host of other effects like adventure design and what have you. While CR is hardly a science, it is an attempt at a systematic approach to adventure design. Whether it is successful or not is certainly debatable, but it is an attempt. Like an_idol_mind, I have found the ruleset to be more than robust enough to handle a lot of changes. My World's largest Dungeon group had no arcane casters for example. No cleric either (favoured soul instead). The group size varied from 3 to 7. Yet, the module played reasonably well most of the time. The malfunctions that I ran into were typically due to poor application of the rules rather than going outside of assumptions. ((A personal beef of mine is the Big Monster in a Small Room syndrome that plagues the module where you have six Minotaurs in a 20x20 room for example)) But, because 3e was designed by designers, its approach is more systematic than previous editions. Again, that will meet with praise or disappointment depending on the user, but, I don't think that that's an unfair assessment. [/QUOTE]

Verification