Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2021, 02:55:17 PM
Older versions of DnD never gave one shit about so called Balance.

Look at the wandering monster tables, while adventuring through the Mountains you encounter (rolls dice) 1d6 Dragons.

Eh. Basic D&D explicitly ties dungeon level to monster difficulty. I don't think AD&D spells it out like that, but the general idea for a long time has been dungeons with level appropriate difficulty, and when you "graduate" to hexcrawl, the encounters get a bit more wild, wooly and unpredictable.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 24, 2021, 06:38:51 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2021, 05:24:53 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on February 24, 2021, 04:51:21 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2021, 02:55:17 PM
Older versions of DnD never gave one shit about so called Balance.

Look at the wandering monster tables, while adventuring through the Mountains you encounter (rolls dice) 1d6 Dragons.

Those were the wilderness encounter tables and meant for only high level parties. If you were in a first level of a dungeon, you'd never encounter dragons like that.

It's a joke to say that AD&D wasn't supposed to have encounter balance when every single adventure module was sold based on the expected level of the party playing through it. Just because there weren't any hard and fast rules in the DMG on how to balance adventures to the party level, doesn't mean that this wasn't the expectation.

Yes Adventure writers wanted balance but ADnD gave no fucks for balance.

Yeah.  Good thing the same people that published the adventures weren't the same people that published AD&D.  Oh, wait...

And aren't you one of the people in another thread who was arguing that ancillary materials prove that AD&D had monster races as a standard?  And now ancillary materials like adventures don't count?

Goalposts ------>

You

Yep, I am the one who said monstrous races were balanced.

Oh wait, no that was you.

Of course if I used your "logic" then I would just say that the adventures made in 3e were "balanced" and therefore CR works just fine.

But that would be an idiot thing to try and claim.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 24, 2021, 07:04:16 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2021, 02:55:17 PM
Older versions of DnD never gave one shit about so called Balance.

Look at the wandering monster tables, while adventuring through the Mountains you encounter (rolls dice) 1d6 Dragons.

Eh. Basic D&D explicitly ties dungeon level to monster difficulty. I don't think AD&D spells it out like that, but the general idea for a long time has been dungeons with level appropriate difficulty, and when you "graduate" to hexcrawl, the encounters get a bit more wild, wooly and unpredictable.

Does anyone else remember the Carrion Crawler on the first level of the Basic Adventure?

You know the one with 8 attacks that can paralyze you?  Good times, good times.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2021, 08:00:48 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 24, 2021, 07:04:16 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2021, 02:55:17 PM
Older versions of DnD never gave one shit about so called Balance.

Look at the wandering monster tables, while adventuring through the Mountains you encounter (rolls dice) 1d6 Dragons.

Eh. Basic D&D explicitly ties dungeon level to monster difficulty. I don't think AD&D spells it out like that, but the general idea for a long time has been dungeons with level appropriate difficulty, and when you "graduate" to hexcrawl, the encounters get a bit more wild, wooly and unpredictable.

Does anyone else remember the Carrion Crawler on the first level of the Basic Adventure?

You know the one with 8 attacks that can paralyze you?  Good times, good times.

As already discussed, this is the sort of encounter that is not out of line with the orignal CR system in 3e or the CR system in 5e.

According to 3e, some encounters will be CR+6 (And in 5e some will be deadly).  The original point was not that you only fight balanced encounters but to help the GM know which encounters are deadly and which are not.  It's so that if you know the monster is likely to kill the party you can help clue the party in to that through clues and signs and the like.  As mentioned above the Roper in Forge of Fury was perfectly in line with the expected encounters in 3rd edition.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2021, 07:54:35 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 24, 2021, 06:38:51 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2021, 05:24:53 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on February 24, 2021, 04:51:21 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2021, 02:55:17 PM
Older versions of DnD never gave one shit about so called Balance.

Look at the wandering monster tables, while adventuring through the Mountains you encounter (rolls dice) 1d6 Dragons.

Those were the wilderness encounter tables and meant for only high level parties. If you were in a first level of a dungeon, you'd never encounter dragons like that.

It's a joke to say that AD&D wasn't supposed to have encounter balance when every single adventure module was sold based on the expected level of the party playing through it. Just because there weren't any hard and fast rules in the DMG on how to balance adventures to the party level, doesn't mean that this wasn't the expectation.

Yes Adventure writers wanted balance but ADnD gave no fucks for balance.

Yeah.  Good thing the same people that published the adventures weren't the same people that published AD&D.  Oh, wait...

And aren't you one of the people in another thread who was arguing that ancillary materials prove that AD&D had monster races as a standard?  And now ancillary materials like adventures don't count?

Goalposts ------>

You

Yep, I am the one who said monstrous races were balanced.

Oh wait, no that was you.

Of course if I used your "logic" then I would just say that the adventures made in 3e were "balanced" and therefore CR works just fine.

But that would be an idiot thing to try and claim.

Ok, I literally laughed at your response.  It's not even coherent, much less addressing anything that has been stated.  In fact, it states things that are demonstrably untrue (I look forward to the quote where I said monstrous races are balanced).  Quit while you are behind...

One of the complaints I've had with CR and other methods of ranking monsters by level is that it results in monster bloat. Monsters are created to fulfill a quota, and so often the same concept is duplicated with superficial changes between many different monsters.

Pathfinder Mythic was the logical extreme, since it just slapped "mythic" label on a bunch of monsters as if that somehow makes them cooler than usual.

The only games that have CR are D&D and it's clones.

IMHO it is due to the scaling issues the game has because of constant HP inflation.

I have never been a fan of it - and other RPGs do not need it largely because they have much shallower power curves.

I have also yet to see many d20 based games go a low/Fixed HP route.

It seems that zero to hero is a hard habit to break.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 25, 2021, 02:44:44 PM
The only games that have CR are D&D and it's clones.

IMHO it is due to the scaling issues the game has because of constant HP inflation.

I have never been a fan of it - and other RPGs do not need it largely because they have much shallower power curves.

I have also yet to see many d20 based games go a low/Fixed HP route.

It seems that zero to hero is a hard habit to break.

Hero System has the "Active Points" comparison which is more or less equivalent in purpose to CR, though of course it also is used for comparing character abilities too.  It's also about as useful in balancing encounters in Hero as CR is in D&D.  Hero isn't necessarily zero to hero, but it is supporting a wide range of power levels as a generic system.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 25, 2021, 02:44:44 PM
The only games that have CR are D&D and it's clones.

IMHO it is due to the scaling issues the game has because of constant HP inflation.

I have never been a fan of it - and other RPGs do not need it largely because they have much shallower power curves.

I have also yet to see many d20 based games go a low/Fixed HP route.

It seems that zero to hero is a hard habit to break.

Indeed. It even filtered into general fiction.

Zero to Hero is an Archetypal Story.  You dont just get rid of Archetypes by saying you dont like them.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 25, 2021, 02:44:44 PM
The only games that have CR are D&D and it's clones.

IMHO it is due to the scaling issues the game has because of constant HP inflation.

I have never been a fan of it - and other RPGs do not need it largely because they have much shallower power curves.

I have also yet to see many d20 based games go a low/Fixed HP route.

It seems that zero to hero is a hard habit to break.

It's not a bad habit, it's a feature. Perhaps the most important feature among the many that contributed to D&D's success. That's because it's a player rewards system, and a skill point here, a skill point there isn't as compelling as leveling up in D&D. UX studies show that people respond better to occasional big rewards than to more frequent incremental improvements. It sucks you in, and give you something to strive for. That's why it's so widely emulated in online games.

Though there's definitely an argument against infinite scaling. Perhaps the biggest problem is pragmatic: It's hard to balance across an infinite range. E6 recognized that in the d20 system, and capped the game at the sweet spot, allowing lateral improvements (more feats, more skill points), but not advancements (no to BAB increases, no new spell levels, etc.) after 6th level. Old school D&D has a cap at name level (9th in Basic, varies a bit in AD&D), but that's only really for hit points, and only partially (still get a flat bonus). Things like saves and to hit rolls cap later (up to about 21st level in AD&D1) or not at all, and spells not until archmagery (or high priests a few levels behind). I always thought converting old school D&D to a E6-equivalent (probably E9 or E10) would make an interesting variant. The trick is providing lateral improvements.

Nah, I don't use CR. Just word problem math with very poor fun returns. Faster to use Hit Dice or XP Tiers to eyeball something to slot into the Encounter Table. For Set Piece Battles, such as an Adventure's typical hingepoint, I liked those being more according to the XP Tier and Setting Fiction's Context.

No need to complicate the job of a GM to scare away future GMs. We are not there to ensure safety and success, as if we are designing bowling lanes with guard bumpers to prevent gutterballs. The players get to pick their challenges (even in most published Adventures to some extent), so let players enjoy the fun of figuring out how. GMing should be a fun hosting experience, not like CPA forensic accounting. 

Quote from: Opaopajr on February 26, 2021, 12:10:25 AM
Nah, I don't use CR. Just word problem math with very poor fun returns. Faster to use Hit Dice or XP Tiers to eyeball something to slot into the Encounter Table. For Set Piece Battles, such as an Adventure's typical hingepoint, I liked those being more according to the XP Tier and Setting Fiction's Context.

No need to complicate the job of a GM to scare away future GMs. We are not there to ensure safety and success, as if we are designing bowling lanes with guard bumpers to prevent gutterballs. The players get to pick their challenges (even in most published Adventures to some extent), so let players enjoy the fun of figuring out how. GMing should be a fun hosting experience, not like CPA forensic accounting. 

Yes.  It really should have been discarded as a relic of 3rd edition and it's over-systemetization of everything.

Quote from: TJS on February 26, 2021, 01:30:40 AM
Yes.  It really should have been discarded as a relic of 3rd edition and it's over-systemetization of everything.

Better yet, replaced with a discussion of how experienced GM's handle it.  Could easily be done in the same or less space as the CR stuff.  Look at the hit points, average damage, number of attacks, AC and saves..  If they want to throw those in a quick formula for a "Base CR", fine.  Then have the discussion about looking at the special abilities, how the creature is typically encountered, etc. and  make an educated guess on what the challenge really is.  Ideally, it would be listed as something like:  "CR 3 (1-4)", where the first number is what a simple formula says and the range is the educated guess.  That would establish that the whole thing is very imprecise. 

The organized play fanatics would have had a coronary, which is why they didn't do it that way.  Would still have been the better way.  Maybe causing the organized play fanatics grief can even be seen as a feature, not bug.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 25, 2021, 03:14:54 PM
Zero to Hero is an Archetypal Story.  You dont just get rid of Archetypes by saying you dont like them.

There's zero to hero, and then there's infinite power leveling.

I get the whole psychology situation about a dopamine hit on level up, but that doesn't mean a game convention lends itself well beyond that context.

You don't see infinite power leveling in the myths and stories that originally inspired D&D. Hercules doesn't become more powerful with every labor he fulfills. Odin doesn't keep accumulating more and more power after his first stint impaling himself on the world tree. Conan doesn't become more and more powerful with every threat he faces off. Captain America doesn't keep getting stronger and stronger with every villain he defeats. Sherlock Holmes doesn't become more powerful with every mystery he solves. Luigi and Mario don't get increasingly powerful with every victory over Bowser. These stories aren't worse off for lacking infinite power leveling, and I'd argue they're better off without it.