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

[Mirrorrorrim]

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 as fiddly and sim-like as the 3E rules were, they proved to me that it was not only broken, but failed to be anywhere close to reaching a decent sim experience or even verisimilitude. Mechanically, it was about optimizing using fiddly bits with extremely unbalanced options, both on the worthless and overpowered ends.

Just because a player could micromanage skill ranks to unlock specific perks and never think about that skill again did not mean it was simulationist design. It was just fiddly micro-managing design, which some people like that level of control. That level of control comes off as more gamist to me.

 

[Mannahnin]

And as fiddly and sim-like as the 3E rules were, they proved to me that it was not only broken, but failed to be anywhere close to reaching a decent sim experience or even verisimilitude. Mechanically, it was about optimizing using fiddly bits with extremely unbalanced options, both on the worthless and overpowered ends.

Just because a player could micromanage skill ranks to unlock specific perks and never think about that skill again did not mean it was simulationist design. It was just fiddly micro-managing design, which some people like that level of control. That level of control comes off as more gamist to me.

Agreed. I saw some pretty optimized uses of the magic item design rules as well, and saw how easy it was to find loopholes in the math.

Let's not even get into the degeneracy of the CharOp forums and theorygames.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes, these passages are very clearly in line with 1E sensibilities, to my mind. "Don't let barracks-room lawyers pull shenanigans", as Gary would say. "The rules are for exciting fantasy play, not for simulationism, use common sense", as he also said (paraphrasing) in the original DMG.

It's literally the exact opposite of what Micah claimed it was.

Using rules lawyerable examples from 5e's rules wording rather than something like the 3.x peasant railgun might have given those examples a bit more punch in the 5e DMG though

 

[Stormonu]

And as fiddly and sim-like as the 3E rules were, they proved to me that it was not only broken, but failed to be anywhere close to reaching a decent sim experience or even verisimilitude. Mechanically, it was about optimizing using fiddly bits with extremely unbalanced options, both on the worthless and overpowered ends.

Just because a player could micromanage skill ranks to unlock specific perks and never think about that skill again did not mean it was simulationist design. It was just fiddly micro-managing design, which some people like that level of control. That level of control comes off as more gamist to me.

Yeah, initially I was enamored by 3E and it's "rule for everything ... and then some" that covered just about every corner case you could think of, and had a mechanical effect behind every choice you made.

It wasn't until I picked up the likes of Savage Worlds (and later 5E) that I realized that all 3E was doing was chaining down my fun and making it into a job - as both a player and a DM.

These days I'd be more likely to go back to 2E (with all its warts) before I'd touch the 3E rules again. There are some great ideas in 3E - I steal liberally from it all the time for 5E, but I prefer to drop the baggage that came with a lot of it.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, these passages are very clearly in line with 1E sensibilities, to my mind. "Don't let barracks-room lawyers pull shenanigans", as Gary would say. "The rules are for exciting fantasy play, not for simulationism, use common sense", as he also said (paraphrasing) in the original DMG.

It's literally the exact opposite of what Micah claimed it was.

I am not bothered Micah views the rules that way. His frustration is legit even if I don't share it. I am bothered that I just am not seeing what he's seeing. I can disagree with a difference in perspective but I have to at least see the perspective to begin with.

 

[SlyFlourish]

Based on the analysis I did last year of the XGtE encounter building rules, the 2024 encounter building rules are effectively the same as the XGtE rules for multiple monsters but with double the number of monsters per PC.

The XGtE encounter building rules for multiple monsters are based on the same math as the 2014 DMG rules. They don't appear to use an encounter XP multiplier, but what they really do is bake in a default XP multiplier of 2 into the calculation, i.e., the value you'd get for four monsters vs four PCs. This effectively re-centers the 2014 DMG math around one monster per PC and minimizes the relative error of not adjusting the XP multiplier to account for the number of PCs and monsters in the encounter.

Translating this into how the 2014 DMG encounter building rules work, assuming the XP multiplier is always 2 equivalent to cutting the PCs' XP thresholds in half and then not applying any sort of encounter multiplier. Since the 2024 DMG XP budgets are mostly the same as the 2014 XP thresholds, this means the number of monsters generated by the 2024 DMG rules will be roughly double those generated by the XGtE rules.

Is that true even at high CR monsters? It seemed to offer less of a threshold when you run fewer higher CR monsters.

 

[Selas]

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.

My god man. That passage is specifically about players exploiting the rules. This just showed your bias front and center. Let's go over them quick:

Rules aren't physics: aka don't try to pull the peasant railgun, or the cleric lawnmower, or CWB turkeybowl

Game is not an economy: don't try to use an infinite gold glitch with crafting and spells

Combat is for enemies: bag of rats; nuff said

Rules rely on good faith interpretation: don't try to use rules interactions to gain an unfair advantage; aka Coffelock shenanigans

 

[tomedunn]

Is that true even at high CR monsters? It seemed to offer less of a threshold when you run fewer higher CR monsters.

If you rounds the calculated ratios shown in figure 4 of my analysis to the nearest whole number, they exactly match the values in XGtE for all monster CRs and PC levels shown in that book (with the exceptions of those ratios greater than 1:12, since those are capped). So, at the very least, the translation they used remained the same for high and low CR monsters.

The XGtE rules and the 2014 DMG rules do produce different results for encounters with two monsters, as well as those with 7+ monsters, where the XP multipliers in the 2014 DMG isn't equal to two. But the relative difference between them is fairly small because of how they chose to recenter the math around one monster per PC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My god man. That passage is specifically about players exploiting the rules. This just showed your bias front and center. Let's go over them quick:

Rules aren't physics: aka don't try to pull the peasant railgun, or the cleric lawnmower, or CWB turkeybowl

Game is not an economy: don't try to use an infinite gold glitch with crafting and spells

Combat is for enemies: bag of rats; nuff said

Rules rely on good faith interpretation: don't try to use rules interactions to gain an unfair advantage; aka Coffelock shenanigans

You think none of those axioms apply to the DM?

 

[Selas]

You think none of those axioms apply to the DM?

They do...however, who do you think tries to do one or more of those more often than not? Players; specially those that want to be the best in the table and to win the game (aka video game mentality).