CRs/ELs -- apparently the designers don't read the rules they talk about (old thread)

[hexgrid]

When you also factor in that only recently has "game design" been available as college course curriculum, why would you assume a "game designer" knows anymore than you.

Because unlike me, they devote 40+ hours a week to the topic.

(And you just said yourself that it can't be taught, so I'm not sure how the lack of college course curriculum applies.)

 

[Delta]

Anybody can learn a programming language, and write a program.

Tell that to my community college students.

 

[Ourph]

Please note that this is Mike Mearls, D&D Fan, talking about his first experiences with D&D 3e.

Please note that it's particularly ironic that Mike Mearls is complaining the 3e rules commit the crime of preventing him from replicating the greatness of The Keep on the Borderlands in light of his previous comments about that module.

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1250.html

Irony, thy name is Mearls.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmm. Somehow I can't see the fault in his post.

The game also tells that the characters will need 13 encounters to level. To get to this number, you have to use EL = PL encounters. Yes, you can (and from experience: should) put other types of encounter in the game, but this is the baseline standard, and the game doesn't seem to recommend using the higher EL encounters.

And more to it: A EL = PL encounter reduces the party's resources by approximately 25 (or 20?) %. This means that if you want to design an encounter with many opponents at low level you will automatically reduce the amount of encounters considerably below 4-5. I don't know the example Dungeon, but I assume the designer in question didn't have in mind the party retreating after their first encounter, but wanted to have them keep on fighting.

Also note that a 50 % chance of success implies that every second time you try to make such an encounter, your group will probably be defeated or possibly dead. Not really what you want from the encounter with multiple NPCs, unless it was the climatic and final battle...

 

[Samnell]

The game also tells that the characters will need 13 encounters to level. To get to this number, you have to use EL = PL encounters. Yes, you can (and from experience: should) put other types of encounter in the game, but this is the baseline standard, and the game doesn't seem to recommend using the higher EL encounters.

Actually, it tells you that given EL=PL encounters you will need about 13 of them to level. It doesn't tell you to always use EL=PL. As a matter of fact, the book suggests otherwise. Only half of all encounters should be EL=PL if you're going absolutely by the letter of the suggested spread in the DMG. The same guidelines suggest that 5% of encounters should be at EL+5.

It would be hard to read the suggestion that 5% of encounters be give levels (or more) above the party as anything but a recommendation for the use of higher EL encounters. Furthermore, the DMG lists 15% of encounters as being in the EL +1 to +4 range. So that's a total of 20% of encounters greater than EL=PL per the recommended guidelines.

 

[Spatula]

Hmm. Somehow I can't see the fault in his post.

The game also tells that the characters will need 13 encounters to level. To get to this number, you have to use EL = PL encounters. Yes, you can (and from experience: should) put other types of encounter in the game, but this is the baseline standard, and the game doesn't seem to recommend using the higher EL encounters.

And more to it: A EL = PL encounter reduces the party's resources by approximately 25 (or 20?) %. This means that if you want to design an encounter with many opponents at low level you will automatically reduce the amount of encounters considerably below 4-5. I don't know the example Dungeon, but I assume the designer in question didn't have in mind the party retreating after their first encounter, but wanted to have them keep on fighting.

Also note that a 50 % chance of success implies that every second time you try to make such an encounter, your group will probably be defeated or possibly dead. Not really what you want from the encounter with multiple NPCs, unless it was the climatic and final battle...

A 50% chance of success-type fight is going to be EL = PL+4 or more. Anyone who has DM'd and made use of monster CRs knows that an EL = PL encounter is a fairly easy fight, and if you want to challenge your party (without causing serious damage), you use higher ELs. I'm assuming the author has DM'd 3E D&D, and can only guess he dashed this article off from the top of his head, based on half-remembered gripes, and no one with any actual knowledge proofread it.

 

[Vigilance]

Huh... so are people really reduced to saying Mike Mearls doesn't know how to run D&D now?

That he doesn't respect the designers of 3e? Including Monte Cook? A guy he used to work for?

C'mon guys, stop being jerks.

 

[Khairn]

Huh... so are people really reduced to saying Mike Mearls doesn't know how to run D&D now?

That he doesn't respect the designers of 3e? Including Monte Cook? A guy he used to work for?

C'mon guys, stop being jerks.

Now this is just my opinion, but I believe the point that the "jerks" were making is that if WotC developers are going to use examples of how badly the 3E rules work in order to promote the "improvements" that they are making with 4E, that they might want to make certain to use the actual rules.

I realize that 3E bashing appears to be in vogue right now among many 4E supporters, but for some D&D players who actually like 3E, that attitude is getting rather stale.

Just an opinion.

 

[Vigilance]

Now this is just my opinion, but I believe the point that the "jerks" were making is that if WotC developers are going to use examples of how badly the 3E rules work in order to promote the "improvements" that they are making with 4E, that they might want to make certain to use the actual rules.

I realize that 3E bashing appears to be in vogue right now among many 4E supporters, but for some D&D players who actually like 3E, that attitude is getting rather stale.

Just an opinion.

Huh, so comments about Mike Mearls not respecting the "giants" that came before, and comments about someone who stood up for him being illiterate were just to defend the integrity of the rules huh?

Who knew?

 

[Khairn]

Huh, so comments about Mike Mearls not respecting the "giants" that came before, and comments about someone who stood up for him being illiterate were just to defend the integrity of the rules huh?

Who knew?

Oh ... I'm sorry. I usually ignore those kind of silly comments. I was still thinking of the original poster's point.