D&D (2024) New DMG Encounter Building Math vs 2014

[TwoSix]

2004 (so twenty years ago) was right in the middle of 3e, which is as sim a system as D&D ever had mechanically.

And ever since that high point there has been a deprioritization of sim. Two years later they were working on 4e, which actively eschewed sim as a priority.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

2004 (so twenty years ago) was right in the middle of 3e, which is as sim a system as D&D ever had mechanically.

I do not agree with you on 3.x being sim, I did have many a row on these boards back in those days about that.
By the way, to me, sim is simulating the world and 3.x had too many narratively absurd things about it. Now to get into it I would have to re-read the books and I am not that invested enough in the argument to do that, but to my mind when ever game mechanical convenience and sim conflicted in 3.x the designers came down on the side of game.

I would see Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay first edition (the only one I was familiar with) is much more sim.

EDIT: On further thought, I notice you did not dispute my main point, but nitpicked about the nature of 3.x

 

[Retros_x]

No doubt, but I can't see that passage as anything but a blatant attack on simulationist play. Not that WotC 5e supported such very well earlier, but as I've said they've become quite outspoken about it in 5.5. IMO Reducing the importance of setting and worldbuilding (which I feel these "rules" accomplish)

Please tell the exact sentences from that quoted paragraph which are blatant attacks and reduce the importance of setting and worldbuilding. It boggles my mind, because I see a paragraph that deals with problem players trying to exploit the rules so a if ever only slightly related topic.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And ever since that high point there has been a deprioritization of sim. Two years later they were working on 4e, which actively eschewed sim as a priority.

Yes, and people rejected it. 5e definitely was a step back, even if didn’t go all the way to where 3e was.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, and people rejected it. 5e definitely was a step back, even if didn’t go all the way to where 3e was.

For sure. But 5e certainly didn't calibrate back towards sim with the same intensity of 2e and early 3e. It allows sim without prescribing it.

 

[gorice]

No doubt, but I can't see that passage as anything but a blatant attack on simulationist play. Not that WotC 5e supported such very well earlier, but as I've said they've become quite outspoken about it in 5.5. IMO Reducing the importance of setting and worldbuilding (which I feel these "rules" accomplish) leaves the game's purpose to be facilitating the PCs crazy adventures and showing off their cool powers, especially when you figure in the multiple warnings in the encounter building section against making things too dangerous for the players, and the general increase in said powers player-side in the PH.

That's my conclusion as to WotC's design goals. I don't expect a lot of folks to agree, and I'm sure it will make a lot of money for WotC. It reads to me as more player-centric than it has ever been, but that appears to be what people want.

I think you're largely right about WotC's priorities, and maybe reading too much into the DMG text.

In any case: I don't think D&D is going to give you what you want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And ever since that high point there has been a deprioritization of sim. Two years later they were working on 4e, which actively eschewed sim as a priority.

More's the pity from my perspective, but fair enough.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do not agree with you on 3.x being sim, I did have many a row on these boards back in those days about that.
By the way, to me, sim is simulating the world and 3.x had too many narratively absurd things about it. Now to get into it I would have to re-read the books and I am not that invested enough in the argument to do that, but to my mind when ever game mechanical convenience and sim conflicted in 3.x the designers came down on the side of game.

I would see Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay first edition (the only one I was familiar with) is much more sim.

EDIT: On further thought, I notice you did not dispute my main point, but nitpicked about the nature of 3.x

I agree. 3e was more gamist than sim st the end of the day, but it did try to have mechanical representation for a lit of things, and even though I don't like a lot of ways they tried to do that I appreciated the attempt. 3e at least tried to preserve classic play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Please tell the exact sentences from that quoted paragraph which are blatant attacks and reduce the importance of setting and worldbuilding. It boggles my mind, because I see a paragraph that deals with problem players trying to exploit the rules so a if ever only slightly related topic.

I don't have the book. Read the relevant passage here. The parts about how the rules aren't physics, do not represent an economy, and were only for PCs as far as combat was concerned are what I'm think of here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For sure. But 5e certainly didn't calibrate back towards sim with the same intensity of 2e and early 3e. It allows sim without prescribing it.

True. 5.5, however, appears to want to discourage it actively. That's what I've been talking about this whole time.