In AD&D, what was the precursor to Challenge Ratings (CR)?

[The Dungeon Nazi]

Throw a TPK at them, and they'll never think that way again.

(I'm serious! The _best_ way to deal with metagaming is to talk to your players out of game. However, at some stage, you'll probably have to show that you're willing to go all the way if you want your OOC discussions to be taken seriously. The best bluffs are those that can be backed up.)

Well, that's why I rely less on the CR system and more on what I think would make a neat battle.

And to drive the point home, I begin every campaign by passing out copies of the first few pages from Chapter One of The Temptation of Elminster -- it goes into detail about how three adventuring companies (with about 15 wizards, two archmages) decided to join up and loot Myth Drannor. The reader then tags along for about four pages while the most capable mage and a priest of Tempus fight to take a few devils down with them as they die.

 

[mmu1]

"since I've never seen any players actually think to run away"

Kill them and then see what happens.

There is nothing worse for D&D than the computer game/Diablo mentality that the DM will only sick level appropriate monsters on you.

Clark

I'm not really sure that's true - in my experience, its worse by far if you actually manage to get the party so intimdiated and afraid of death that they start acting exaclty like they would in real life - constantly running from, or even not getting into combat at all, trying to bypass everything, and taking hours of valuable gaming time trying to come up with cunning plans that will make the combat as easy as possible, that usually cease to work at first contact with the enemy...

Making sure the players are confident in their abilities is very important... It's snapping them out of being complacent without breaking them that's the problem - and TPK's are rarely the solution. I find the gruesome death of one PC works much better - it makes the players realize their character are mortal, but it should also make them want payback.

 

[mmadsen]

For example, a troll is what CR? How many orcs (according to the rules) is the same CR? You find me one party of 6 first level characters that wouldnt clean up the orcs and get greased by the troll.
...
Numbers: CR/EL really breaks down when you have a number of foes. Lots of smaller CR creatures will always be more difficult than one big CR monster. No matter what the CR rules say.

Hmm...

Actually, I loved your post, Clark/Orcus. I just couldn't stop myself from pointing out that contradiction -- even though I basically agree with each of the opposed points.

 

[BOZ]

in this past week's gaming session, the DM set a single orge (CR 2) against an undamaged, well-equipped 1st-level party. most of us were nearly killed before the ranger got a couple of good hits in and killed it. make of that what you will.

 

[Orcus]

madsen-

The contradiction you point out demonstrates my point that a troll is not set at the proper CR. its CR should be way higher as demonstrated by the fact that (using the rules) the larger number of equal CR/EL creatures is a much easier fight than the single troll which should not be true.

Clark

 

[med stud]

"Numbers: CR/EL really breaks down when you have a number of foes. Lots of smaller CR creatures will always be more difficult than one big CR monster. No matter what the CR rules say. Why? Because the single monster can rarely focus on more than one or two PCs while the PCs can all focus on it; numbers allow one or two monsters to engage each PC, preventing them from working together properly."

I dont agree on this. One hill giant is EL 7 while 16 regular orcs also are EL 7. One hill giant can be dangerous to an ill prepared party, while 16 orcs almost never are problematic.

Often many small creatures are too weak. You are right to a degree, but I dont think one can say that it really breaks down.

 

[Hand of Vecna]

Orcus said

Intelligence: 4 2HD humans will present much different threats if they charge mindlessly or if they use good battle tactics. That is not factored into CR.

I'd like to think the monster designers/CR assigners would assume Players would use inteligent tactics, since most RPGers are (at least marginally) more intelligent than Joe Schmoe.

With this in mind, I should think PC's/Players who charge heedlessly into combat would get what they deserve.

[[ granted, some players do play the "charge-heedlessly-into-battle" type, but these are usually Barbarians, and they've got loads of hp's, and so should be able to survive long enough for that 'flight' aspect of the 'fight-or-flight' response to kick in. ]]

 

[sword-dancer]

Re: Monster Level (1e)

To say it short.

"I give you a fair chance to survive eveery encounter, not to win every encounter"

BTW Fair= depends on the circumstances, not necessary the level ability of the party.

 

[dcollins]

Re: Monster Level (1e)

In 1e monsters were rated with a "level" from I-X, with X being the highest. The determining factor was the critter's xp value; a level X monster was worth over 10000 xp, a level IX was worth 5001-10000 iirc, etc... all the way down to the lowly level I monster, worth 20 or less xp.

Just wanted emphasize this, in case it's getting lost in the rest of the discussion.
Note that all monsters had static XP values (they didn't scale according to the PCs' levels).