Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
CRs/ELs -- apparently the designers don't read the rules they talk about (old thread)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ycore Rixle" data-source="post: 4695293" data-attributes="member: 675"><p>Did 4e give us a better encounter design/CR/EL system than 3e? It sure thinks it did. That is, by 4e's standards, it did. On the other hand, by 3e's standards, it did not. </p><p></p><p>Here's what I mean by that. 4e had several goals for encounters. Some were:</p><p></p><p>A) Make encounters easy to DM at the table.</p><p>B) Make encounters easy to design.</p><p>C) Make encounters long enough so that the big bad survived until everyone (including the big bad) had a chance to do something cool.</p><p>D) A lesser goal of the design team, in my estimation, but one pertinent to this thread, is to make encounters more easily able to accommodate many creatures.</p><p></p><p>I'd say that A-C were accomplished by making monsters have tons of hit points and PCs do a lot less damage per swing. Unfortunately unstated goal E) Keep encounters threatening and exciting was, arguably, not met by virtue of that same solution (the grindspace problem).</p><p></p><p>Goal D), clearly, was addressed by minions. By 4e's standards, minions have succeeded. They allow players to do cool stuff, they are easy to DM, they are relatively easy to develop or select and place in an encounter.</p><p></p><p>But by 3e's standards, minions fail. Why? Because they don't make sense. Orcs don't die from stubbing a toe. This is an old argument. 3e says the combat rules must follow the physics of the game world. 4e says the game world's physics don't matter one iota in combat, and things that happen in combat are completely impossible, meaningless, or ineffectual outside of combat.</p><p></p><p>In a similar way, the 4e solution to A-C (high monster hp and low PC damage) is a failure by 3e standards because it sacrifices dynamism for predictability. But 4e specifically wanted predictability (to make it easier to design and build encounters), so by 4e's standards, the solution is a success.</p><p></p><p>Just pick which standards you like, I guess. I like 3e's standards. I play RPGs in part because they have an element of fiction in them, and for me, the fiction is ruined by inconsistent internal world logic. (Was 3e perfect in this regard? Nope. But it tried.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yep. Although, to be fair, everyone is entitled to change his opinion, and that review was written eight years prior to the design article. Still, with such a large opinion swing, there should have been some explanation of that preceding the design article.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ycore Rixle, post: 4695293, member: 675"] Did 4e give us a better encounter design/CR/EL system than 3e? It sure thinks it did. That is, by 4e's standards, it did. On the other hand, by 3e's standards, it did not. Here's what I mean by that. 4e had several goals for encounters. Some were: A) Make encounters easy to DM at the table. B) Make encounters easy to design. C) Make encounters long enough so that the big bad survived until everyone (including the big bad) had a chance to do something cool. D) A lesser goal of the design team, in my estimation, but one pertinent to this thread, is to make encounters more easily able to accommodate many creatures. I'd say that A-C were accomplished by making monsters have tons of hit points and PCs do a lot less damage per swing. Unfortunately unstated goal E) Keep encounters threatening and exciting was, arguably, not met by virtue of that same solution (the grindspace problem). Goal D), clearly, was addressed by minions. By 4e's standards, minions have succeeded. They allow players to do cool stuff, they are easy to DM, they are relatively easy to develop or select and place in an encounter. But by 3e's standards, minions fail. Why? Because they don't make sense. Orcs don't die from stubbing a toe. This is an old argument. 3e says the combat rules must follow the physics of the game world. 4e says the game world's physics don't matter one iota in combat, and things that happen in combat are completely impossible, meaningless, or ineffectual outside of combat. In a similar way, the 4e solution to A-C (high monster hp and low PC damage) is a failure by 3e standards because it sacrifices dynamism for predictability. But 4e specifically wanted predictability (to make it easier to design and build encounters), so by 4e's standards, the solution is a success. Just pick which standards you like, I guess. I like 3e's standards. I play RPGs in part because they have an element of fiction in them, and for me, the fiction is ruined by inconsistent internal world logic. (Was 3e perfect in this regard? Nope. But it tried.) Yep. Although, to be fair, everyone is entitled to change his opinion, and that review was written eight years prior to the design article. Still, with such a large opinion swing, there should have been some explanation of that preceding the design article. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
CRs/ELs -- apparently the designers don't read the rules they talk about (old thread)
Top