D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[SkidAce]

I could see deciding that the city and settled areas are a "no adventuring to be had here: move along" kinda zone, but that's disabling city adventures.

Only if you are using monsters.

Other types of foes (humans etc.) live and fit in there.

Edit: sorry, just saw my point was already brought up, didn't mean to pile on.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Making rpg "toolboxes" seem like a great line of work to get into lol..... especially since apparently your fan base is gonna be filled with eternal apologists for any structural, logical, or balance flaw ("like OMG shoak1 - you do realize those terms are like soooooo subjective anyway, right LOL LOL?"), fans eager to fill any gaping hole in your design (or any elephant in the room) with their own sweat......fans who always put the word balance in quotation marks .

LOL Sacrosanct - I'm guessing if the designers didn't include CR ratings, that would be fine w/you too ("If you're concerned about such things shoak1, you can calculate them - it shows you how on p. xx, so what's the problem?!?!?"). Rpg dudes are funny. Heck, why not just sell a book with pictures of dragons on the cover with blank pages filled with guidelines of where to write, and market it as the "Ultimate Toolbox" lol ?!?!?!? ("Shoak1, stop always complaining - its just a toolbox....You do know you're supposed to buy your own tools right?? Every table is different so how could they possibly know what tools YOU need silly?!?!?!?")

No offense, but this is nothing but hyperbolic drivel. Anyone who disagrees with you is an apologist? We all need to own up to our own personal gaming preferences. You seem steadfast to refuse to do that, and instead demand that they cater to what you want or they are wrong, and anyone who agrees with them is also badwrong. That's an attitude that is poison to our hobby. And even outside of any subjective opinion I have, it's objectively a horrible business decision. The want the most gamers as possible. That is accomplished by giving a good core foundation and a toolbox for individual table to tailor to their needs. We know this is their approach because it says almost exactly that word for word at the beginning of the DMG. To build a game around your needs (or any minority group) would be a shot in the face to the game, because it would alienate so many other gamers. We saw it happen.

So I go back to those choices earlier. You certainly aren't going to sway me or anyone else to your position if all you have is extreme hyperbole and personal attacks as your argument.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm so totally confused by the latest turn in this thread. Wouldn't the relevant threat of a single encounter in the wilderness or a town be something in flux?

An area that is deadly for a party of 1st level PCs isn't deadly for the kings army and won't be deadly for the PCs at 5th level unless something in the world changes.

If a Tier 1 party clears out the bandits raiding the Kingsroad between Winterplace and Harencoridor, traveling on that road between adventures will no longer be dangerous unless an army of undead ice zombies moves in.

The Tier 2 party clears out the undead ice zombies because the Queen sent her troops to deal with a traitor rather than fight an army of the undead. Everyone is happy for a while until a couple of ancient white dragons decide to take up residence between Winterplace and Harencoridor, and suddenly the economy is wrecked because trade is completely shut down and the Queens army was decimated when it fought the traitor and so now the Tier 3 heroes have to go and fight the ice dragons.

With that taken care of, our heroes decide they've had enough of this petty world and travel to Sigil, but on the way there are attacked by a Balor and his minions, but now being Tier 4 they are able to defeat them and make their way to the city of doors.

So yes, in a living world you can have deadly challenges across all tiers of play and a reason for them in game by working with the system.

Or you can work against the system and prove how easy it is to "break" the game.

And while there are mechanical ways to ensure that every single encounter is balanced for challenge, as has been discussed, there are also plenty of story ways that also allow you to have variety in the challenge being presented. I like the fact that sometimes after fighting a deadly fight early in the morning and worrying about the next encounter that there isn't one, and that we "got off easy" that day. I like the fact that sometimes after facing a full day's encounters, I'm still not to the objective and have to decide whether to push on at a disadvantage or retreat and risk failure of my goal. I like the variety of stories that are able to be told without a set in stone mechanical solution to ensuring balance in every fight. I also don't begrudge those who wish to play differently.

I am equally confused. The post that started this sidetrek was where I said that it takes a varied approach and I used one because your suggestion, while apt and well appreciated, did bump into worldbuilding issues if used exclusively. You, of course, did not suggest using it exclusively, that wasn't my point. My point was merely that it wasn't the one true solution and you still needed to use a variety of other techniques, many of which are fairly advanced DMing skills, to actually, in play, balance out the resting/pacing issues. You've, again, made excellent points here.

But, and here's where the sidetrack started, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] said there were no worldbuilding issues with going 3 deadly a day. In a great example of eating his own argument, he then proceeded to try to prove his point by saying that towns should be fortified, civilization has to be big enough to provide large enough armies and militias to defend itself, you should use lots of low CR monsters for higher level fights, and so on, all worldbuilding issues. I rather felt he defeated his own argument nicely. The whole argument was me challenging [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s suggestion that 3 deadlies a day has no worldbuilding implications -- it's not my argument that you cannot ever use 3 deadlies a day as a pacing mechanism, and hasn't been from the start.

Now [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s levelling the "World building is badwrongfun, guys, you shouldn't be even concerned about it 'cause D&D is, like, not for world building!" cannon. Seriously, WTF, over?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Making rpg "toolboxes" seem like a great line of work to get into lol..... especially since apparently your fan base is gonna be filled with eternal apologists for any structural, logical, or balance flaw ("like OMG shoak1 - you do realize those terms are like soooooo subjective anyway, right LOL LOL?"), fans eager to fill any gaping hole in your design (or any elephant in the room) with their own sweat......fans who always put the word balance in quotation marks .

LOL Sacrosanct - I'm guessing if the designers didn't include CR ratings, that would be fine w/you too ("If you're concerned about such things shoak1, you can calculate them - it shows you how on p. xx, so what's the problem?!?!?"). Rpg dudes are funny. Heck, why not just sell a book with pictures of dragons on the cover with blank pages filled with guidelines of where to write, and market it as the "Ultimate Toolbox" lol ?!?!?!? ("Shoak1, stop always complaining - its just a toolbox....You do know you're supposed to buy your own tools right?? Every table is different so how could they possibly know what tools YOU need silly?!?!?!?")

I couldn't care less if they included CR, to be honest. I find it to be of minimal use...a very quick snapshot of a monster's overall strength as an opponent. I know many people absolutely need such a number in order for the math to work in regard to encounter design and XP budgets and so forth, so I get why it was included, but it is almost useless for my needs.

But if we imagine that it was not included.....what would happen? I suppose some DMs would simply stare at the Monster Manual incapable of knowing what monsters were suitable threats for their PCs, or how many they would need to create a suitable challenge. But for those who would not give up, what would it mean?

DMs would have to design encounters without CR, so they'd have to delve a little deeper into each monster to see if it was a suitable challenge for their players. They'd have to learn the monsters' actual capabilities and how they played at the table rather than a number that abstracted those things. The DM would have to consider if the monster with ability X was more of a challenge than the one with ability Y, which CR does not really factor.

Before long, encounter design would become intuitive and creative rather than being literally formulaic. I think in the end, games would eventually improve as DMs stopped worrying about the numbers and started paying more attention to what the numbers mean. CR and it's use in encounter design is largely, to me, a case of the tail wagging the dog.

But I know that's something that would take a bit of time. I think that including the CR was probably smart as a kind of training wheel to help people learn about how to challenge their players, but once they understand it, there is less need for it. I think the reason this edition is more loosely defined in some areas is because they expect groups to play the way that works for them. I think that the game assumes customization and house-ruling to the point where if you're still playing the game exactly the same 5 years after starting, that is more the exception than the rule.

Which I think also addresses the elephant in the room, for the most part. I've said it before in this thread in varying ways, but the game doesn't provide a solution to the problem so much as it provides examples of tools that you can use to design your own solution to the problem. Sure, you can take that idea and exaggerate it to the point of absurdity and then point out how it's flawed (your stat-less Monster Manual) but I don't think that's really much of a valid criticism.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I couldn't care less if they included CR, to be honest. I find it to be of minimal use...a very quick snapshot of a monster's overall strength as an opponent. I know many people absolutely need such a number in order for the math to work in regard to encounter design and XP budgets and so forth, so I get why it was included, but it is almost useless for my needs.

But if we imagine that it was not included.....what would happen? I suppose some DMs would simply stare at the Monster Manual incapable of knowing what monsters were suitable threats for their PCs, or how many they would need to create a suitable challenge. But for those who would not give up, what would it mean?

DMs would have to design encounters without CR, so they'd have to delve a little deeper into each monster to see if it was a suitable challenge for their players. They'd have to learn the monsters' actual capabilities and how they played at the table rather than a number that abstracted those things. The DM would have to consider if the monster with ability X was more of a challenge than the one with ability Y, which CR does not really factor.

Before long, encounter design would become intuitive and creative rather than being literally formulaic. I think in the end, games would eventually improve as DMs stopped worrying about the numbers and started paying more attention to what the numbers mean. CR and it's use in encounter design is largely, to me, a case of the tail wagging the dog.

But I know that's something that would take a bit of time. I think that including the CR was probably smart as a kind of training wheel to help people learn about how to challenge their players, but once they understand it, there is less need for it. I think the reason this edition is more loosely defined in some areas is because they expect groups to play the way that works for them. I think that the game assumes customization and house-ruling to the point where if you're still playing the game exactly the same 5 years after starting, that is more the exception than the rule.

Which I think also addresses the elephant in the room, for the most part. I've said it before in this thread in varying ways, but the game doesn't provide a solution to the problem so much as it provides examples of tools that you can use to design your own solution to the problem. Sure, you can take that idea and exaggerate it to the point of absurdity and then point out how it's flawed (your stat-less Monster Manual) but I don't think that's really much of a valid criticism.

We have a pretty good idea what would happen if there was no CR because that's pretty much how it was done for the first 25 years of the game. I.e., about feel and being intuitive. That's how I've always done it. And even if I was presented with a new monster, I got an idea of it's difficulty by looking at its capabilities, not it's HD. That being said, I also agree it was a good idea to include those guidelines because it helps people who like that and/or are new to the game. I'm all for things that are more inclusive. But I ignore it. The only time I ever look at encounter guidelines are if I'm writing for an AL adventure or something. Otherwise it's just feel.

 

[hawkeyefan]

We have a pretty good idea what would happen if there was no CR because that's pretty much how it was done for the first 25 years of the game. I.e., about feel and being intuitive. That's how I've always done it. And even if I was presented with a new monster, I got an idea of it's difficulty by looking at its capabilities, not it's HD. That being said, I also agree it was a good idea to include those guidelines because it helps people who like that and/or are new to the game. I'm all for things that are more inclusive. But I ignore it. The only time I ever look at encounter guidelines are if I'm writing for an AL adventure or something. Otherwise it's just feel.

Yes, exactly. CR is there for those who want to use it, and is easily ignored by those who don't. And I'm glad they included CR because I think it is particularly helpful to those who haven't been playing long. And also your point about adventure design is a good one, too; it's probably a good idea to have guidelines for those who want to try and publish adventures that adhere to the AL guidelines.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Making rpg "toolboxes" seem like a great line of work to get into .....

The pay's not so great.

especially since apparently your fan base is gonna be filled with eternal apologists for any structural, logical, or balance flaw

Split between a tiny, loud, minority like that and a tiny, loud minority that'll criticize every little thing, with a vast excluded, bemused, middle just trying to play the game...

I'm guessing if the designers didn't include CR ratings, that would be fine w/you too

It was fine for a couple of decades.

I mean, we had monster summoning spells that implied monsters had a 'level' and HD and level were sometimes (/sometimes/ used interchangeably in some specific mechanics, like level drain), and we had some tables in the back of the DMG by 'level' but was it dungeon level or was it implying those monsters had that level...?

Rpg dudes are funny.

Dude, you're playing an RPG, you're an RPG dude.

CR, ...
But if we imagine that it was not included.....what would happen?

5e would feel even more like the classic game, and less like 3e.

Seriously, that's about it. It'd be a bit more art than science to run, but it's already pretty far over on that side.

DMs would have to design encounters without CR, so they'd have to delve a little deeper into each monster to see if it was a suitable challenge for their players. They'd have to learn the monsters' actual capabilities and how they played at the table rather than a number that abstracted those things. The DM would have to consider if the monster with ability X was more of a challenge than the one with ability Y

Well, yes, OK, DMing would be that much harder, and you'd have fewer DMs, especially new DMs...

The ones you had would be split between really talented, artistic, DMs running good games, and determined or indifferent ones running bad games. ...not sure that'd be such a big difference...

 

[Ovinomancer]

I couldn't care less if they included CR, to be honest. I find it to be of minimal use...a very quick snapshot of a monster's overall strength as an opponent. I know many people absolutely need such a number in order for the math to work in regard to encounter design and XP budgets and so forth, so I get why it was included, but it is almost useless for my needs.

But if we imagine that it was not included.....what would happen? I suppose some DMs would simply stare at the Monster Manual incapable of knowing what monsters were suitable threats for their PCs, or how many they would need to create a suitable challenge. But for those who would not give up, what would it mean?

DMs would have to design encounters without CR, so they'd have to delve a little deeper into each monster to see if it was a suitable challenge for their players. They'd have to learn the monsters' actual capabilities and how they played at the table rather than a number that abstracted those things. The DM would have to consider if the monster with ability X was more of a challenge than the one with ability Y, which CR does not really factor.

Before long, encounter design would become intuitive and creative rather than being literally formulaic. I think in the end, games would eventually improve as DMs stopped worrying about the numbers and started paying more attention to what the numbers mean. CR and it's use in encounter design is largely, to me, a case of the tail wagging the dog.

But I know that's something that would take a bit of time. I think that including the CR was probably smart as a kind of training wheel to help people learn about how to challenge their players, but once they understand it, there is less need for it. I think the reason this edition is more loosely defined in some areas is because they expect groups to play the way that works for them. I think that the game assumes customization and house-ruling to the point where if you're still playing the game exactly the same 5 years after starting, that is more the exception than the rule.

Which I think also addresses the elephant in the room, for the most part. I've said it before in this thread in varying ways, but the game doesn't provide a solution to the problem so much as it provides examples of tools that you can use to design your own solution to the problem. Sure, you can take that idea and exaggerate it to the point of absurdity and then point out how it's flawed (your stat-less Monster Manual) but I don't think that's really much of a valid criticism.

We'd also have fewer DMs and players. :shrug: I'm with you on CR being a loose guideline, and I only use it as a rough out for numbers before I tweak in for my group, but then, I've been a DM for more than a decade at this point and have developed over that time a good understanding of how encounters work. I've also developed a keen disregard for having things line up with the suggested math. So, yeah, I'm a great model for exactly what you're talking about. But you know who wasn't? Me, 17 years ago when I came back to D&D with 3e. That guys was balls at this and needed a good set of guidelines so he could learn within the bumpers. And, man, did he screw up by the numbers a few times. But the bumpers kept the game moving and players playing and me learning. Now? CR isn't necessary. But, I'm still hella glad it's there because I remember when it was for me.



EDIT: and ninja'd by Tony. And Sacrosanct

 

[cmad1977]

I use the CR guidelines pretty regularly. Not so much religiously but I do build encounter based upon them or check module encounters against the party levels to see what challenge they're facing.
Usually they work out quite well.
I'll look at a deadly encounter and think
'Hmm... seems a little soft.'
Then the sorcerer is making death saves and the cleric is trying to abjure the undead beast while the warrior holds the line(for example).

They aren't a hard and fast guarantee of encounter difficulty(players are creative when it come to circumventing our plans) but they work pretty well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hawkeyefan]

But I know that's something that would take a bit of time. I think that including the CR was probably smart as a kind of training wheel to help people learn about how to challenge their players, but once they understand it, there is less need for it. I think the reason this edition is more loosely defined in some areas is because they expect groups to play the way that works for them. I think that the game assumes customization and house-ruling to the point where if you're still playing the game exactly the same 5 years after starting, that is more the exception than the rule.

EDIT: and ninja'd by Tony. And Sacrosanct

And me!

I probably didn't stress it enough, but I am glad that CR is in the game for new players and DMs. My indifference to it is purely for my own game. I think if it wasn't there, it would make DMing more of a challenge, yes, but ultimately would lead to better DMing.

Your and Tony's point about there being less DMs is a good point. It could be that it would lead to there being less people willing to DM. Hard to say because we can't compare any real data about it from earlier editions where there were no CRs.