Balanced encounters - yesterday vs. today

[Quasqueton]

I'm not surprised that I wouldn't have seen it, I don't look for DMing advice in the 3E DMG.

gizmo33, I would suggest taking a look at the DMing advice in the D&D3 DMG. Gygax even praised the book for its DMing advice. It is good stuff, though less useful to experienced DMs like you and I. At least, if you look at it, you'll see the advice to DMs is not as some frame it as.

This isn't of course, a mandate of the rules, but I do think it's become a general practice, at least as far as what I read on message boards.

Don't rely on Internet message boards to give you a good (or even adequate) idea of what anything in the D&D3 rule books actually say. Just think about how Internet message boards screw up the facts of AD&D1 rule books.

Quasqueton

 

[Doug McCrae]

There was no implication, as there is in 3e, that encounters are isolated from one another.

I always thought that *was* implied by the whole concept of a dungeon adventure - each room is a separate encounter. I concede that there might not have been much justification for this, but that's what I thought.

Reading through Keep on the Borderlands today, I noticed that the bugbear sentries have a gong which if struck alerts the rest of the tribe. To me that implies it's the exception, rather than the rule.

 

[Doug McCrae]

gizmo33, I would suggest taking a look at the DMing advice in the D&D3 DMG. Gygax even praised the book for its DMing advice. It is good stuff

I agree. It's first rate, imo.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The 3.X DMG says that you should warn your players if you are using only status quo encounters (good advice) and that good adventure design uses the CR guidelines (meh advice, IMHO).

In a "best reading" of the 3.X DMG, the Status Quo design would be considered "setting design" rather than "adventure design" so that the second statement wouldn't effectively call Status Quo design bad design. However, this is by no means explicit.

The 1e DMG calls for a rough balance based upon location, as well as what makes sense in a given location, to create encounters.

Players can (and do) learn the CRs of monsters, and can (and do) use these to make informed decisions, just as 1e players learned the abilities of (at least commonly encountered) monsters. This is one of the reasons that new monsters were so common in older modules, and why the ability to quickly and easily generate new monsters is (IMHO) important to the game. 3.X uses monster advancement and templates to do the same thing, and I certainly think that monster advancement and templates are useful (if sometimes combersome) tools in this regard. The Lost Caverns had so many new monsters that they needed (unless my memory altogether fails me) a seperate booklet.

However, if one's thesis is

I've seen numerous references to a supposedly commonly known "fact" of AD&D1 -- that dungeons were more dangerous, not balanced (appropriate) for the levels, etc. (especially compared to D&D3).....The advice and charts in the D&D3 DMG are very similar in tone and function to their AD&D1 DMG counterparts.​

then, yes, I do think that a rougher approximation of the challenge that a monster represents (i.e., Monster Level system) leads to a wider range of challenges, and hence a more dangerous dungeon, than one in which the level of challenge is more precisely known.

But you don't have to take my word for it. All you have to do is determine what the various CRs would be for an "adventure" of any given level using the CR system as presented in the DMG (roll randomly where there is a choice), then create a random dungeon using the 1e DMG based upon the level you believe appropriate for the same level characters. I recommend 1st level, if only because we know that 1st level PCs are imagined to be able to handle many of the challenges of a 1st level dungeon.

Then compare the two, and see which has the higher potential for lethality, as well as which has the wider range of potential challenges. Don't forget, of course, that your 1e dungeon might pitch you into a lower level without you knowledge and/or conscent, whereas if you follow the CR guidelines, even if this happens it will not affect the level of challenge that you face. Rather like that 1st level party in the Caves of Chaos coming face-to-face with a minotaur, owlbear, and three grey oozes in short order.

This is the sort of analysis that I imagine Quasqueton would be quite good at, and I look forward to seeing the results. Perhaps it might help to explain why some believe that trying to make the guidelines more direct, precise, and clear is in some cases a bad thing.


RC

 

[Quasqueton]

Yes, there was a balancing system in place, one that was less "defined" than that of 3e, but it worked better, because it depended on the DM knowing the capabilities of the player characters in the group.

I find this idea completely absurd and irrational.

However, along with that balancing system came something else: "The characters will encounter this monster here/in this area. If enough noise is made nearby, this monster might wander over to find out what's going on."

There was no implication, as there is in 3e, that encounters are isolated from one another.

Where is the implication in a D&D3 rule book or adventure module that encounters are to be kept isolated from one another?

I find statements like these to be the equivalent to saying, "Vanilla is better because it is a known fact that chocolate is poisonous."

You know, I should just stop trying to discuss D&D editions on ENWorld. There's so many people that just make up crap, or repeat crap from others, that just has no truth. They either make up falsehoods about AD&D1 or they they make up falsehoods about D&D3. I often wonder if people say these things just to troll, or if they actually have come to believe the garbage they hear and repeat.

Quasqueton

 

[Raven Crowking]

I always thought that *was* implied by the whole concept of a dungeon adventure - each room is a separate encounter. I concede that there might not have been much justification for this, but that's what I thought.

If you read Gary's advice, he repeatedly suggested that monsters respond to the PCs; that a dungeon complex should not generally be static. In 1e, modules talk about "encounter areas" (i.e., areas in which an encounter may take place) as opposed to "encounters" per se.

Reading through Keep on the Borderlands today, I noticed that the bugbear sentries have a gong which if struck alerts the rest of the tribe. To me that implies it's the exception, rather than the rule.

You should continue reading through that module. The bugbears were not the only ones with sentries, and specific information is given in many cases as to how the monsters will react once they learn that their lair is breached. It's a very good module.

 

[gizmo33]

But since the core rules are the ultimate source from which 3E's culture is derived, your lack of experience with it could explain why you're not seeing that part of the edition's culture.

AFAICT my opinions on an edition culture is based on what I observe people say on the internet. In the end, it doesn't matter what's written in the DMG, if people aren't using it then it's not part of the game's culture. The reference to the "status quo" advice in this thread is the ONLY time I've ever seen this mentioned, whereas you can throw a cyber-stone at ENWorld and find a place where someone is complaining about the EL of a DMs encounter.

I liken this to people thinking the majority of D&D's focus is combat. Of course when you look at the rules, it appears that way. But that's only because combat requires the most substantial chunk of drafted rules to make consistent and fair. It's no more the thrust of the game than playing the role of your character out of combat (which requires fewer drafted rules).

I think that's a good analogy, but I also think that we would arrive at different conclusions using it. I've seen it hinted at that 4E will contain more rules for resolution of non-combat situations, and the implication being that this will expand the scope of the game. So it's possible that the designers see the correlation between what they write as rules and how people play the game. In other words, the "thrust of the game" as you call it is not as independant from the rules as what I think you're saying.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Where is the implication in a D&D3 rule book or adventure module that encounters are to be kept isolated from one another?

I believe that this comes from designing "encounters", balancing encounters, and the philosophy that an adventure is made up of encounters, which implies that encounters are discrete things.

 

[billd91]

I believe that this comes from designing "encounters", balancing encounters, and the philosophy that an adventure is made up of encounters, which implies that encounters are discrete things.

That's nothing new with 3E. The encounter areas barely interact in Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth and that's quite a hodge-podge of monsters introduced from the MM2.

In the 3E DMG, the subject of static vs dynamic adventure sites is brought up and, I think, it helps illustrate why encounters are often compartmentalized: they're easier to design and run.
If anyone's getting an impression that 3E is any more geared toward compartmentalized encounters, it sounds more a function of DM laziness to me than a function of the edition.

 

[Rel]

You know, I should just stop trying to discuss D&D editions on ENWorld.

You should if you feel that you must ascribe as dishonesty and trolling what could simply be misunderstanding or other points of view.

This comment does not apply only to Quasqueton.