I tried the 4 player standard, what a mess...

[Doug McCrae]

You know, while I appreciate the CR system on a lot of levels, on one basic level I don't like it. Why should the universe always issue challenges that just happen to be exactly the level that the PCs are?

In traditional D&D, some times you got in over your head, and sometimes things were really easy. The CR system makes it feel more like a "video game" to me.

The CR is just a guide for the DM. There's no rule that all challenges should have the same EL (Encounter Level) as the party's level. In fact the DMG recommends:

10% Lower EL
20% Special - easy if handled right, hard otherwise
50% Same EL
15% 1-4 EL higher
5% 5+ EL

So if you follow the DMG guidelines, the party can still get in over their heads.

 

[JustinA]

The CR is just a guide for the DM. There's no rule that all challenges should have the same EL (Encounter Level) as the party's level. In fact the DMG recommends:

10% Lower EL
20% Special - easy if handled right, hard otherwise
50% Same EL
15% 1-4 EL higher
5% 5+ EL

So if you follow the DMG guidelines, the party can still get in over their heads.

What's interesting is how many players I've run into who have gained a weird sense of "entitlement" from the CR system. I have run games for multiple groups over the past few years which featured players analyzing my CRs and then complaining whenever they face an encounter that was "too tough".

I have frequently been tempted to put together some sort of set-up where I can play a sound-clip from the LOTR movies:

FLY YOU FOOLS!​

Although now that I think about it, this is just another example of rule lawyers. They're just latching onto a new mechanic for their false pedantry.

(I love having rule experts at my table. These are the guys who will point out that I, as a DM, have screwed up a rule. We'll look at the rule, they'll be right as often as they're wrong, and we'll have learned something and be a little better off at the end of the day.

Rule lawyers, on the other hand, try to parse the text so that it favors them. They will frequently ignore things which don't support them -- like the encounter guidelines you note -- and will usually continue arguing long after their case has been lost. They are pariahs of the worst sort and, at least insofar as their rules lawyering is concerned, contribute absolutely nothing to the quality of the game session.)

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Raven Crowking]

Rule lawyers, on the other hand, try to parse the text so that it favors them. They will frequently ignore things which don't support them -- like the encounter guidelines you note -- and will usually continue arguing long after their case has been lost. They are pariahs of the worst sort and, at least insofar as their rules lawyering is concerned, contribute absolutely nothing to the quality of the game session.)

best definition ever.

 

[Felix]

Although now that I think about it, this is just another example of rule lawyers. They're just latching onto a new mechanic for their false pedantry.

I'm confused.

Are you trying to say that the CR system encourages bad players in a way that encounter systems have not done in the past? Or are you using this CR topic to springboard to your vent against rules lawyers?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are you trying to say that the CR system encourages bad players in a way that encounter systems have not done in the past? Or are you using this CR topic to springboard to your vent against rules lawyers?

Not sure about JustinA, but previous encounter systems have not suggested that the creatures PCs encounter be tailored to their level, but rather to the area they explore. Moreover, previous encounter systems (or at least before 2e) included the idea that areas might be designed (through chutes, or gently sloping floors, for example) to channel PCs into tougher encounter areas with or without their knowledge. This was part of "fair play" and taking steps to prevent/minimize the effects of it on the players' part was part of "good play".

I still run games that way, BTW.....but it is no longer the standard way to run games. Even official modules that arguably follow the EL guidelines (Forge of Fury, for example), might suggest that you remove the overwhelming encounters if you think the players will attack them (this is the advice given in FoF for the roper).


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

You know, while I appreciate the CR system on a lot of levels, on one basic level I don't like it. Why should the universe always issue challenges that just happen to be exactly the level that the PCs are?

In traditional D&D, some times you got in over your head, and sometimes things were really easy. The CR system makes it feel more like a "video game" to me.

I remember the Against the Giants (module code G1-2-3) series. The "CR" of the main room in that keep was WAY beyond the party level. But you knew they were there, and had time to plan, and it forced creativity in approach (like climbing on the roof and carving a hole in the ceiling and blasting them with fireballs from above, or burning the building down, or luring some out with an illusion, etc...).

So a CR3 Ogre vs. a level 1 party SHOULD be challenging, but it should also be an encounter the party can handle if they think it through and play smart and are forced to be creative.

I don't think it's a good idea to fall back on the "it's too hard" whine. It's supposed to be hard. That is part of the game. Part of the fun!

I'll go with what everyone else said: the reason you don't like it isn't actually a quality it has.

 

[JustinA]

IAre you trying to say that the CR system encourages bad players in a way that encounter systems have not done in the past? Or are you using this CR topic to springboard to your vent against rules lawyers?

The latter, although the vent against rules lawyers was simply an extended discussion of what Doug McCrae pointed out: People misuse the CR system and then blame the CR system for being misused. McCrae was talking about DMs. I extended the point to include players.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'll go with what everyone else said: the reason you don't like it isn't actually a quality it has.

I've been guilty of the exact same thinking about the CR/EL system. However, I am forced to agree with KM on this. The universe doesn't always issue challenges that just happen to be exactly the level that the PCs are.....It issues half the challenges at the PC's EL, 10% at lower EL, 20% that are easy if handled right and hard otherwise, 15% at 1-4 ELs higher, and 5% at 5+ over the party's EL.

So, you can see that the universe delivers challenges formulaically based off the party's level, but not actually always at the party's level.

Surely that "video game" feel dissipates when you consider this difference?

 

[Vocenoctum]

What's interesting is how many players I've run into who have gained a weird sense of "entitlement" from the CR system. I have run games for multiple groups over the past few years which featured players analyzing my CRs and then complaining whenever they face an encounter that was "too tough".

I've been a player in such an encounter, so let me explain how it happened.

Our camping (with guard) low level group (I believe we were 2nd or 3rd level) was ambushed by a group of bugbears with their higher level leader. There were a lot of them. (The bugbears had no story purpose, just random encounter.)

Afterwards, when we were trying to patch up, I said that the attack was anti-fun, asked what he expected it to be. He mentioned it was a random encounter, and he figured it'd be challenging, but we could handle it.

So, yes, I pointed out that adding up the EL of the encounter, by all rights we should have died if it was a straight up combat. The fact they surrpised us and most of the party was unarmored made our survival a stroke of luck (or DM Fiat).

If a DM doesn't know how the CR system can work to control pacing and gauge the desired level of damage, then it's not a problem with the CR system.

 

[Felix]

The latter, although the vent against rules lawyers was simply an extended discussion of what Doug McCrae pointed out: People misuse the CR system and then blame the CR system for being misused. McCrae was talking about DMs. I extended the point to include players.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Ah. Frankly this thread had dropped out of consideration for a while and I've lost the different strains of conversation. May it die a quiet, and more permanent, death.