Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 5993207" data-attributes="member: 6688858">Why would they put filler text in there that contradicts a design  goal? That makes no sense. I think it clearly is more likely that they  have simply changed their design goal. They tried coming up with  adventure construction guidelines, but couldn't make it work according  to their OCD math-geeky standards, and so they dropped it and we're now  back to the encounter as the focus of play. There's nothing unbelievable  about this really.I want to have some encounters that are literally off the scale here. I think adventures are better if they have some encounters that will TPK the party if they barge in and start hacking. The second playtest presents these encounters as rules-illegal and the text calls them "bad".I want to use monsters because they fit the story and the setting, or just because I think they're cool and feel like using them. The text says this is not the way to do it; you're supposed to choose monsters based on how appropriate they are matched up against the player characters.I mean...what would it take for me to have a legitimate beef here? The game police breaking in and forcing me to play a certain way? The game says my play preference is rules-illegal and bad. This is a perfect example of 5e not supporting a playstyle. If you expect people to use rule zero to hack the game into their preferred version then there's nothing to talk about, because no criticism could ever have any validity.It's pretty childish to take such joy in others' disappointment.Yeah, that's terrible, but not unexpected. This is what Mike Mearls likes about these encounter balancing rules: they shift the balance of power over the game from the DM to the players. <a href="http://mearls.livejournal.com/80639.html" target="_blank">mearls: The Metagame of RPGs</a>My suspicion is that the purpose of these balancing calculations is not to enable DMs to create "better" encounters exactly; the purpose is to prevent the DM from disvaluing the mechanical widgets the players buy in splatbooks, because that's the game's primary source of revenue. The idea that this makes for a "better game" is epiphenomenal to this economic reality.Put more simply, WotC pushes math-geeky twinky powergaming because that's what they know how to sell. They don't know how to sell old school improv play. It doesn't matter what makes for a better game; you can make up propaganda for either.Eh, I suppose I could get behind this.It's pretty simple really -- fine put the math of the game in there,  show people how to calculate the appromixate odds of success the party  has against certain monsters, but don't take any sort of stance in the  text about what encounters are good and bad.Just give the tool. Don't tell people how to use it, or even to use it  at all. Or at least if you're going to do that, talk about the pros and cons of using it.Also mention that the balance calculations only take into account the HP ablation widgets the players have on their  sheets. If you through your monsters or the players through their PCs tend to bypass parts of the mechanical system by messing with the  fictional game-world directly, then the tool is going to be less accurate  and possibly useless.If anything I would prefer advice on not overusing the tool.  But I am willing to compromise at no advice one way or the other.</blockquote>

Verification