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

[Li Shenron]

I didn't have the impression that the 5.0 DMG rules for building encounters of a wanted difficulty and for creating new monsters have been exactly popular in the last 10 years. And now that the 5.5 DMG content is getting revealed, there are already discussions about how once again encounters build and monsters creation rules aren't good enough once again. I think WotC designers have mentioned that they actually took good effort to "revise" these rules for the new DMG, which got me thinking... what exactly does it mean they "revised" them? I know it sounds like a dumb question, but bear with me...

For sure WotC does create encounters in their published adventures and monsters in most of their manuals. Therefore, WotC at least has been using a method for doing these things. It doesn't necessarily mean they use rules, but they aren't just doing it randomly. But do the DMG rules really match with the methods WotC use in their published material?

If indeed the DMG rules or guidelines are the same as what they use, this presumably is the result of 10 years of designing adventure encounters and monsters for this edition: what really did they have to work on so hard for the new DMG, other than simply put in words the method they already use? If on the other hand the DMG rules are something else, well the question is why are they even coming up with something like that instead of just telling us how they do it? This made sense back in 2014 when they had to write a DMG before actually designing many adventures and their encounters, and before knowing well enough if the MM entries were balanced enough, but after 10 years they should just either know how, or know they don't know how.

I can imagine that some of you at this point are already thinking, that maybe WotC doesn't really use any "rules" because building encounters and creating monsters "are an art, not a science". Well then, why doesn't WotC very honestly say so in the DMG? If the book's purpose is to teach people how to be an effective DM, and the truth is that you can't define "rules" for certain stuff, then it would be a good idea to teach that as well.

 

[Selas]

It's not that the new encounter rules aren't good once again, it's more like some are complaining about the adventuring day being removed. The new rules will make encounters more difficult to match the increased power the revised classes got, specially in T3/T4. (Edit: I have also seen complaints about the increased difficulty)

As for monster creation, we only got rules for reflavoring monsters in 2024, and that's the complaint. We're hoping the actual creation rules appear in the Monster Manual.

 

[OB1]

It's not that the new encounter rules aren't good once again, it's more like some are complaining about the adventuring day being removed. The new rules will make encounters more difficult to match the increased power the revised classes got, specially in T3/T4. (Edit: I have also seen complaints about the increased difficulty)

As for monster creation, we only got rules for reflavoring monsters in 2024, and that's the complaint. We're hoping the actual creation rules appear in the Monster Manual.

The Dungeon Dudes did a deep dive on the new encounter building rules, and mentioned using them for a 17th level encounter and found that they work great.

Also, keep in mind that while some classes got stronger to catch up with other classes, most of the powerful nova capabilities got reduced, which should lead to encounters playing out in more similar fashion regardless of party composition.

 

[Stormonu]

Back in 3E, I seem to remember some discussion where they broke down the encounters for Forge of Fury and how they used the encounter ratios (for the most part) in the various encounters.

Mostly, I don't think they use anything close to the rules presented in the DMG nowadays for encounter building - if they ever did past early 3E. I'm willing to bet that Coolness, Design Experience, Feel and Playtesting are the primary factors beyond any formula.

Monsters, on the other hand, I suspect start with a formula (but not the one in the 5E DMG), and then modified as above.

 

[Emerikol]

Back in 3E, I seem to remember some discussion where they broke down the encounters for Forge of Fury and how they used the encounter ratios (for the most part) in the various encounters.

Mostly, I don't think they use anything close to the rules presented in the DMG nowadays for encounter building - if they ever did past early 3E. I'm willing to bet that Coolness, Design Experience, Feel and Playtesting are the primary factors beyond any formula.

Monsters, on the other hand, I suspect start with a formula (but not the one in the 5E DMG), and then modified as above.

I think one of the things they loved about 4e was getting away from rules as physics. Meaning monster design rules that had to be followed. They went to exceptions based design instead and 5e still reflects that decision. In exceptions based design CR is an art as much as a science. I'm not saying it is bad either. It is a way.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well then, why doesn't WotC very honestly say so in the DMG?

Because a lot of players don't want to hear that. Their immediate response will be "Well, why am I paying for a DMG then?!?"

Most players don't want to be told the truth from the designers... they want to be told the designers are making the game exactly how they wish to play it. They need that pat on the head that their preferences are the "right" preferences by seeing them appear in the book.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's the thing.

There are different styles of adventure building.

The designers of the 2014 DMG
The designers of the early 5e adventures
The designers of the early 5e adventures
The group of late 3e and early 4e DMs
The majority of modern 5e DMs

all pace adventures and build monster differently.

The design of encounters for each group is different and WOTC designed early 5e adventure different than the adventure design of 2024 DMG.

A tru honest DMG would be 200+ pages on adventure, campaign, encounter and monster design alone because there's so many different ways to do it.

And all of them are being used.

That's the curse of being a 50-year-old game.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

If there was an "encounter guru/czar" at WOTC whose job was to check all encounters headed for publishing and validate them against the DMG guidelines we might have some real consistency. I am pretty sure this is not any one person's job though so in addition to different people working on creating all of these encounters there are also different editors paying varying levels of attention to this particular detail so my guess is that adherence will vary quite a bit from book to book.

Using their own rules has never really been a strength with WOTC. Going back to 3.5 there were posts in this very forum going through the monster manuals and checking the math and discovering that many of the creatures did not adhere to their own published monster design rules. 4E had problems in some of the very first products with monsters being way too strong for their level.

If your own staff, presumably working with the people who wrote these things, cannot follow them, how seriously should anyone else take them as rules/guidelines for their own campaign?

 

[Minigiant]

If there was an "encounter guru/czar" at WOTC whose job was to check all encounters headed for publishing and validate them against the DMG guidelines we might have some real consistency. I am pretty sure this is not any one person's job though so in addition to different people working on creating all of these encounters there are also different editors paying varying levels of attention to this particular detail so my guess is that adherence will vary quite a bit from book to book

It wouldn't matter.

Because designing for a

1. Cinematic Dungeon crawl
2. Tactical Dungeon crawl
3. Strategic dungeon crawl
4. Cinematic wilderness survival trek
5. Strategic wilderness survival odyssey
6. Big City Adventure
7. Small town romp
8. Ballroom brawl

and more would all have different rules.

Again, a think a major part is that the designers of WOTC like a different style of game than their customers.

Like a baker who likes vanilla cake with chocolate lover customers.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

Ultimately the encounter building rules are intended to be loose guidelines - that's how they're treated by official adventure writers for wotc.

Wotc obviously doesn't want to market their DMG by saying "yeah the encounter rules don't work, build your encounters based on vibes" since people want a functional product, not a loose guideline.