Quote from: BrimshackThey argue that if the characters don't have x amount of magic on them then the game is out of balance, etc. It's shit, and it's tiresome. But it's shit that comes not from the rules themselves so much as from a certain way of reading the rules.

well, it's not complete shit.  higher-level characters can't compete against appropriate creatures without a certain (sometimes assumed) amount of magic gear.  spellcasters, not necessarily.  but a high-level fighter or rogue w/o the right gear is pretty hamstrung.  

this also assumes core, not any other books with powers/abilities like 9 swords or whatever.

Erm, why are they hamstrung, if there's no requirement to match CR with character levels?

Basically I get the non-"wussified" usefulness of CR when used as (I think Sett) suggested above--as a measure of the typical encounter in a given hex. But once you get into concocting "appropriate" encounters it sounds like you're conceding the point: CR is being used to help GM's mollycoddle players who feel entitled to only encounter enemies that they can beat through an average expenditure of 25% of their resources or whatever.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sagaenhancement2

This is also a case where choices about assigning CR could genuinely influence playstyle, I think.

If you set them high, you're in a way saying that the powergamer/optimizer is playing right.

Setting it low thus seems better, because you let the character/setting explorer type match the foes, and then the optimizer can play a 'challenge' version of the game and boast about how much higher CR he/she took out. The rules can even give guidelines for going after 'bigger game' in terms of CR.

Doesn't change the fact that it can't be more than a guideline, for the reasons previously cited.

Also doesn't handicap people who want a more low magic style.

Sett: yep, that's pretty anti-strategic.

In a video game like Oni or Marathon or Myth: the Fallen Lords (Bungie's pre-Halo classics), I have a right to feel confident that every level will be a mix of encounters that are cumulatively challenging but ultimately defeatable. If completing a level is "too hard", I have a right to be annoyed at the designers. But that's because those games give me no choice or control over which levels to play.

In a table top RPG you've got a wonderful opportunity to design nonlinear adventures and campaigns that enable strategic thinking. However if every encounter is tailored to the party as described in that Star Wars Saga advice, then it really doesn't matter which way they turn, or what plans they make.

So when the GM asks "What are you going to do next?", my thinking is going to be completely different depending on how I think CR is being used. (Cough...going out on a bit of a limb here...never played 3.x...so I'd appreciate comemnt from someone who has.)

In a descriptive fashion as a way of indicating the toughness of certain game world elements? Then I'll base my decision on finding a path of least resistance to my goals, and think through it in strategic terms.

In a prescriptive fashion as a way of ensuring that every encounter is just hard enough for the party, but no harder? Then I'll ignore strategy and go in whatever direction sounds coolest. (If my fellow players try to discuss strategy at this point I'll roll my eyes.)

Both of these are reasonable approaches in their own way; in fact I think the latter might be a better one for Star Wars. However, for me it takes strategy out of the picture and it also reduces the sense of the game world as an external phenomenon. (I was talking about something similiar in this post from a while back.)

But this is totally a question of how to use the tools at hand. And we shall never forget: most/many people don´t care for strategic decision-making.

And I cannot see how on earth 3.x prevents me from doing it as strategically as I want. Actually, the CR is a good measurement tool enhancing my rationalization and pre-planning/prep-work process.

I have to take your word for it, also in the other thread where you say the DM guide does describe how to use the tools for "status quo"/sandbox play.

I can understand the lack of interest in strategic decision-making. It may be too much work for some, or seem arbitrary when the players don't have enough information. I also know I've seen a lot of sessions slow to a crawl when players squabble over plans. It's bad enough when the plans matter...even worse when whatever the players do, the GM is going to give them a "fair" set of encounters. (Strategy is rewarded when you're able to make things unfair for the other guy.)

For the sake of playing a game with pretty high stakes (character/campaign investment), you probably don't want too steep of an optimization-payoff curve in terms of strategy. (I.e., you don't want players to be paralyzed by fear of failing to make the "optimal move" on the grand campaign chessboard; you want them to feel free to goof around, and get into trouble.) Ergo, de-escalating the strategic stakes somewhat makes sense, but using CRs to (essentially) turn every encounter into a "party-appropriate" one also harms the sense that the game world is independent of the characters.

So I'm not blaming the tool for the application to which it's put. It's just that this is more than just an issue of enabling or impairing strategic play; it's also an issue of "character immersion".

EDIT: Probably not worth a separate post but I'm very pleased to see that the DM's Guide has introduced the highly useful terms "tailored" and "status quo" to the critical vocabulary of RPGing. These links are great: Video Games, Meet Old School GMing (with links back to Jeff & Sett), and Shadows against first level characters?!! (Mar 28 2006, 12:20 AM).

I love CRs, and I think of them as the greatest innovation in adventure gaming in this decade.

The execution is still a bit crude (influence of environment, synergies between different monsters, mis-adjusted CRs with obscure calculation), but the basic idea is nevertheless great.


Do you remember all those questions on message boards when you bought a new system and are wondering how to make a working, balanced starting adventure and don't know how all those rules, stats and other pieces work together? The majority of the answers is some Swinish shit on the line "uh-huh, GMing is a art form that has to be learned in year-long experience, we can't tell you how to do that". Thanks, smart ass - I only get one shot to sell this game to my players, and if the first real adventure blows up (be it by boredom of to easy encounters or by an unfair TPK), I can slip the system into the trash, go back to square one and follow the nagging of my players to GM Shadowrun again.
Even if I get helpful responses to build balanced encounters or a working adventure-to-buy, it's still a indication that there's something missing in the basic rules - after all, if I had everything what I need to build a good adventure myself, I wouldn't need to get any external help (be it by message boards, be it by adventures-to-buy, be it by gaming experience).

CRs eliminate this hyperfluid need for external aid and allow everyone who has only read the rules to build passable encounters and, therefore, adventures. It allows everyone to GM well, and that is in my experience the biggest fear of old school gamers in regards of CR - that their capital A Art of adventure design gets turned into a trivial task, and that suddenly their whole misconception of GMing as venerable and hard to acquire craft turns out to be a waste of many gaming years just to calibrate the system.


If the pinnacle of old school gaming was to throw overpowered monsters at your players to see them either wasting valuable play-time by fleeing and evasion or by getting squashed and squeamed, than I'm even more happy to be a new school guy. Besides, the classical Gygaxian overpowered encounters were never that brutal - it was general usage to make the overpower of the encounter visible far away from entering the encounter and to build in ways to get around of the combat. In essence, it was as exciting as encountering a high voltage fence with a friggin' big blinking neon warning sign in real life. Golly, how adventurous, if I'm the one in 2.000 people so stupid to ignore the obvious and touch it, I'll get turned to toast!
I never liked this kind of encounter, and it gets even worse if you get a bad GM who leaves the warning signs away and turns it into a hollow gambling game without any base to make judgements. I use this overpowered encounters with a warning sign only seldom, just for the sake of variety and to break up monotony every now and then. (More seldom than 1 in 4 adventures.)


For my own game Mazeprowl, I'm going to use a mechanic similar to CRs. However, as the game centers around whole self-contained missions instead of single encounters with time to rest and re-group between them, CRs will be for whole missions. In addition to encounters, they will cover such important meta mission stuff as information gathering, investigations and counter-strikes of the opposition, available time and basic layout of the "dungeon".
In addition, I won't use PC experience as a base to determine the difficulty of the mission. I will use their Reputation, a stat that is only partially dependent on the competence of the PCs and can easily be higher or lower than the competence. Therefor, they may well either run into missions so easy that they can explore everything comfortable and collect all treasure and other secondary perks, or they may run into missions that get far over their heads and turn out to be nervous, paranoid "run-run-run to the mission objective and get the fuck out of here" affairs. As the players have some influence on their reputation, it is partially in their hands how tough and rewarding they want their adventures to be. (A bit similar to the cyberpunk rogue-like "Decker", for those who know it.)


Set:
You defend CRs? Just weeks after our bitter arguments about GM rules on the German blogosphere and forums? I'm amazed.

Quote from: beeberwell, it's not complete shit.  higher-level characters can't compete against appropriate creatures without a certain (sometimes assumed) amount of magic gear.  spellcasters, not necessarily.  but a high-level fighter or rogue w/o the right gear is pretty hamstrung.  

this also assumes core, not any other books with powers/abilities like 9 swords or whatever.

What do you mean by "appropriate," because it looks like your argument is a bit circular. Use of the the term itself suggests that you are placing a normative value on a specific balance. But there is no inherent reason to accept such norms in the first place. If 4 20th level characters cannot take on a 20 CR, then so be it. There will be some moster that can provide them with a good challenge, and that is only a problem if one assumes that 20th level characters "Should" be matched against a 20 CR monster, which is what I was challenging to begin with. The only balance I feel obligated to maintain is player to player. The rest is merely tools. They have a certain utilitarian value, but they do do much to generate an "ought' of any kind.

i guess i just don't get, or care for, the mechanic.  it never fit my group of players, and i don't really go much for d&d anymore either, except as a beer-&-pretzels diversion.  

maybe with the right ref?  i dunno.  at least others are having fun with it.