D&D 5E I now the DMG isn't out yet, but I'm gonna DM anyway. Thus far, I've noticed that...

[Ruin Explorer]

Seems about as easy as 0D&D/BD&D, back when I first started in 1981.

GMs seem to fall into 2 camps: --[I say GMs because I GM other games with the same issues as D&D]
* Those that like math-heavy, "perfectly balanced" encounters
* Those that wing the encounters to be whatever they want, using their previous experience and gut feeling about things

You're sticking stuff together that isn't, in reality, stuck together. There TWO axes here.

1) How much detail and complexity people like in building monsters/NPCs. At one end you have 3.XE/PF, GURPs, and similar ultra-heavy-detail systems full of interdependencies (Feats are particularly bad for this), at the other you have a number of indie systems where NPCs/monsters barely exist at all (most older RPGs tend weakly towards the former, most D&Ds are in the middle or nearer the lighter end).

2) Whether the DM wants to have good information on how tough the encounter is likely to be, or whether he doesn't really care, either because he just doesn't care, or because he is willing to fudge if it's problematic.

Those are DIFFERENT axes. I can prove this (as much as one can on the internet!). We've all, I think, come across GMs who love ultra-detailed NPC building, but loathe balance-type guidelines, and don't really care about balanced encounters - particularly in games like GURPS or Shadowrun (or 3.XE/PF). Equally, I know that, no matter how simple the system, I value information on how hard an encounter is expected to be.

Assuming they are together is just counter-productive!

As for the rest of it, as [MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION] points out, you seem confused. EL/CR doesn't LIMIT you, it guides you. You can't pretend it's "limiting" you any more than any other PC of DM guidance.

 

[Afrodyte]

How did this thread go from me talking about how I'm looking forward to DMing this game to another debate on the merits of D&D mechanics?

 

[Syntallah]

How did this thread go from me talking about how I'm looking forward to DMing this game to another debate on the merits of D&D mechanics?

Internet + People

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't believe in "perfectly balanced encounters." Each encounter should serve a purpose and drive the storyline, not just be thrown into the game for crap for the PCs to kill, just cuz, just for x.p.

OTOH I prefer going to a more distant past and awarding XP for treasure. Encounters are challenges and barriers standing in the way of the prize. I find the attraction is that the goal is a neutral one with regard to how encounters are handled.

It also means that cash poor wandering monsters are a hazard best avoided instead of a fast track to leveling up on the hoof.

Do we have any guidelines on altering creatures/NPCs yet? All I could find in the DM Basic was that swapping weapons & armor "could change" the CR of the monster. Adding magic items "could change" the CR, etc.

- What if I want to give a monster max hit points?

- What if I want to give a Bandit leader the Knight's Leadership ability?

- What if I want to increase the poison DC of a swarm of snakes?


How do any of these changes affect the base CR?

I would recommend that you change what you like to make sure the encounters are closer to what you want for the setting & situation.

If a monster has a range of hit points then the challenge should be flexible enough to allow for both minimum hp and maximum hp specimens to be included.

If you think it would be appropriate for the bandit leader to have that ability, go for it.

If the poison is significantly deadlier then perhaps bump the CR up a notch or two.

Unless the MM comes with a CR building system that calculates CR precisely, and can be followed to build existing monsters in the rules, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

 

[Lalato]

Internet + People

You have it wrong. It's specific people with agendas that derail every freaking thread with their my way is the right way pronouncements. And then the other people can't help themselves but to feed the pigeons... even though the sign clearly says... "DON'T FEED THE AGENDA-OBSESSED PIGEONS!"

 

[rastus_burne]

You have it wrong. It's specific people with agendas that derail every freaking thread with their my way is the right way pronouncements. And then the other people can't help themselves but to feed the pigeons... even though the sign clearly says... "DON'T FEED THE AGENDA-OBSESSED PIGEONS!"

Or people just like talking about game mechanics and editions

 

[Mistwell]

In fact, I'm still preaching that D&D made a serious mistake, AGAIN, in tying x.p. to killing stuff rather than tying it to game time and story/plot..but such is the nature of D&D - shackled by it's past.

I think you are going to be pleasantly surprised when you see the DMG advice on levelling. Mearls has mentioned a session-based levelling system.

 

[Afrodyte]

You have it wrong. It's specific people with agendas that derail every freaking thread with their my way is the right way pronouncements. And then the other people can't help themselves but to feed the pigeons... even though the sign clearly says... "DON'T FEED THE AGENDA-OBSESSED PIGEONS!"

Figures.

So, in the interest of actually staying on topic, how about we talk about what we look forward to DMing with this new edition and how our DMing styles may be impacted or supported by the rules?

 

[rastus_burne]

Figures.

So, in the interest of actually staying on topic, how about we talk about what we look forward to DMing with this new edition and how our DMing styles may be impacted or supported by the rules?

Well, the few sessions I've run with 5e has been an experience of the system/mechanics disappearing into the background and the adventure stepping forward. It's the type of rule-set thus far that seems to favour speed and spontaneity. But then again, this edition isn't the only edition that can obtain such a feat.