Calico_Jack73 said:
I was briefing considering putting together a one-shot game of 1e or 2e AD&D for my gaming group when I came to the frightening conclusion that I've become dependent on a monster's CR for balancing an encounter against a party. Exactly how did we do it back in the old days? You really couldn't go off a monster's HD because obviously any special abilities could sway an encounter beyond the capabilities of the party. I also came to the realization that I let CR weigh too much on my mind when I plan encounters for my 3.5E game. I may come up with a great idea for an encounter but then have to shelve it because the party is too high or low level for it.
How about the rest of you oldsters... have any of you grown dependent on CR to plan encounters?
Dependent? No, because CRs are a guideline at best. If you don't run a game according to the "standard" model of x number of encounters per day, with y number of encounters needed to level up, the CR system becomes largely meaningless. (For example, a game based around a hectic escape from an enemy stronghold, followed by a mass battle to defend your home from enemy invaders cannot use the CR system as a meaningful guide, as the encounters flow one into the other and aren't measurable as discrete entities).
More important than CR is an understanding of how much damage characters can take and deal out when compared to their foes (for combat), and how important to the PCs non-combat encounters are when awarding XP. These considerations lie at the heart of the CR system, but they can (and should) exist on their own as valid considerations.
In AD&D1e, for example, there were rough guides akin to challenge ratings. Monsters were assigned "levels" unrelated to their actual Hit Dice. Although this system topped out sooner than the CR system, it was a handy starting point. A DM, however, had to be able to perform the kind of analysis I mentioned in the paragraph above - namely, he needed to be able to assess the impact monsters would have on characters and vice versa.
This was similar to how CR is assessed these days - a DM needed to develop an idea of how often a monster might hit a PC of a certain AC, and how much damage it might do, how likely a PC might be to fail his save against a monster's attack etc etc. It was basically the same sort of understanding that is required when assessing CRs, although it was harder to do as the systems in previous editions weren't as homogenised as they are today. Essentially, knowing how to balance encounters came from understanding the stats involved and through direct play experience.
I do prefer the CR system on the whole - less window for error and less work on my part. But it was certainly possible in previous editions - just a bit more of a headache
...
