To me the frustration with encounters that are "just right" for our group is that I´m supposed to win.

There is no greater glory in there for me, as I dig anti-climactical strategic gaming against overwhelming odds. Indirect approach and all.

But that´s a gripe with modules, not with the rules. And about modules now and then we already had a decent thread with calithena, melan and mearls in it.

So I´d greatly appreciate if we could stop playing pundit´s game of intermingling CRs etc. with a certain mentality of module design. These things are not related and are only intertwixed via Pundit´s sloppy reading of the DMG, and lack of actual play experience.

I just want to weigh in on the "CR means everything is perfectly balanced against the party" thing:

Quote from: Dungeon Master's Guide, page 49Sometimes, the PCs encounter something that's a pushover for them.  At other times, an encounter is too difficult, and they have to run away.  A well-constructed adventure has a variety of encounters at several different levels of difficulty.

Immediately following this is specific advice on the specific range and frequency of encounter difficulties.  (And yes, "the PCs don't have a chance in hell of winning" is on the list.)

As I said, Pundit´s shoddy reading of the DMG.
There´s also a paragraph on "status quo" DMing style, basically the sandbox and Wilderlands style.

Quote from: mearls"Balance" in RPG R&D parlance means "balance between character options." It has nothing to do with monsters. Monsters go through design and get a CR assigned to them at the end. I have no idea why attaching a number that rates their strength from 1 to X does anything other than vastly improve* the game.

There is some truth to Pundit's claims. Even if Wizards designed CR to be descriptive (in which role it is servicable, if far from perfect - 3.0's CR 2 ogres having killed more low level types in our games than anything else), there is a widespread belief that they are prescriptive, and that adventures should follow a certain CR distribution. I don't know if this is a miscommunication in the rulebook, or a real expectation on the side of fandom that clashes with designer priorities. There are other examples - e.g. status quo encounters are mentioned in the DMG, but there are many who conveniently forget this and argue that they should not be used at all.

[edit]Settembrini, many people make the same mistake, not just Pundit. I maintain that we are looking at something some people "wish out of existence".[/edit]

So, wouldn´t it be the better strategy for the Pundit, to call bullshit against the idiots who misread and misinterpreted it?

Wouldn´t it be way more in the RPGPundit´s character, to defend and championize WotC against the hordes of moddly-coddly-whiney players?

Wouldn´t it be a perfect example of how evil PE lines of thought have infested  gaming discourse, while actually ignoring what holy WotC has written in the sacred D&D books?

I think he´s just making two steps less than he used to.

He could rant and rave against a new generation of girlie man players being bred on internet forae, AGAINST what the official rules say!

Because I´ve never ever heard a complaint by someone who doesn´t visit D20 forae about an encounter being too hard for them or being unfair.

So I propose this new line of ranting:
Fight the mentality that came into existance through internet debate.
Defend WotC.

That´d be more fitting.

Every 2nd Edition idiot can berate 3.5 for it´s design decisions. From the Pundit I expect more insight and political sure instinct.

Another, possibly offtopic problem with the CR-EL thing: the system drastically overvalues weak monsters in large numbers. 20 orcs are counted as a very high level challenge (I don't have my book around ATM, but it's at least EL 9 or maybe more). The same 20 orcs are very easily slaughtered by a mid-level party; high-level ones can stand their ground against hundreds of low-level opponents, even if less easily than in previous editions. So the challenge mechanics are not only misinterpreted/open to misinterpretation, but fail to take the realities of play into account.

But I suppose this is fodder for the "CR sucks" thread.

Quote from: SettembriniSo, wouldn´t it be the better strategy for the Pundit, to call bullshit against the idiots who misread and misinterpreted it?

Wouldn´t it be way more in the RPGPundit´s character, to defend and championize WotC against the hordes of moddly-coddly-whiney players?

Wouldn´t it be a perfect example of how evil PE lines of thought have infested  gaming discourse, while actually ignoring what holy WotC has written in the sacred D&D books?

Here's the thing; there are a number of things in the original 3.0 D&D books that were written up a certain way, that Wizards itself proceeded to completely ignore in everything it did afterwards.

Prestige classes, for example, have never been used the way they were intended in the original DMG.  Instead, they have just become "Advanced Character Classes with uberspecial powers".

The concept behind CR is another. Regardless of the fact that the DMG says that sometimes you should create encounters that the PCs are unable to defeat and should run away from, everything else that everyone has ever written for D&D after that point has suggested a totally different mentality, wherein PCs are never supposed to face an opponent that they don't have at least an even-chance of beating through their fucking "resource management".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe concept behind CR is another. Regardless of the fact that the DMG says that sometimes you should create encounters that the PCs are unable to defeat and should run away from, everything else that everyone has ever written for D&D after that point has suggested a totally different mentality, wherein PCs are never supposed to face an opponent that they don't have at least an even-chance of beating through their fucking "resource management".

Well, you, Melan, Gary Gygax and I can agree that there´s not been a healthy dose of "status quo" /sandbox-style learning texts outside of the Wilderlands or similiar niche products.
But, nothing in the rules hinders me in sandbox-style play. Actually, CRs make it easier:
Swamps in the Elphand Lands have an EL of 9 in the average. That´s a huge shortcut for making encounters.
And a great shorthand for rationalizing the environment. How do the cavemen survive in that CR 9 environment?

The CR and resource ramifications give me way better tools to rationalize and extrapolate the necessary defenses and precautions and average level of the caveman villages in the swamps than every other fantasy RPG out there.

The fact that prestige classes aren´t used as you like it, doesn´t hinder you in using them the way you want. In fact, they are already there, you just have to put them in your world.
Before that, there were no Prestige classes to be "abused".

Keep also in mind, that the high challenge environment of Dungeon Magazine and WotC modules makes combats so deadly, you want to use everything you can lay your hands on. Mixing and mashing together half-dragonhood-warlock-spellthieving-barbarians from the lands of badassery sounds awful like un-rationalized gonzo to me.

So decide what you want to rail against:

Too much or too few gonzo elements in 3.x?
You are contradicting yourself.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm not sure what prompted those questions.

I edited my post to indicate what it was responding to.

Quote from: Elliot WilenPerhaps you're still pushing Mythic, and I admit from what I've heard it sounds like a very interesting and perhaps innovative product.

The intent was not to "push" Mythic but to respond to what I thought the Original Poster's question was.
Since the thread seems to have strayed off that topic by my post, I understand your confusion.
=

Powergame min-maxing and Gonzo are not the same thing, Sett. In fact they're utterly opposed.

Gonzo is "weird for weird's sake", not "weird so that I can get that feat which lets me do an extra +1d12+5 damage even though it makes no sense for my character".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditPowergame min-maxing and Gonzo are not the same thing, Sett. In fact they're utterly opposed.

Gonzo is "weird for weird's sake", not "weird so that I can get that feat which lets me do an extra +1d12+5 damage even though it makes no sense for my character".

RPGPundit

Exactly. Gamma World 1E was totally gonzo - one of my favorite games - as is TMNT, the best thing Palladium ever did. Gonzo is a style separate from munchkining, the difference is intent. One of my favorite characters from my old AD&D days was a Ranger polymorphed into a dog, played by my friend Dean - who also played an eyeless monk in OA. He couldn't talk, use weapons, or cast magic spells, though he could lick his own privates, which was some consolation I suppose... Anyway, the point was he was far less powerful than an ordinary Ranger, purely because Dean wanted to play him that way, because it was fun on its own terms.

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditPowergame min-maxing and Gonzo are not the same thing, Sett. In fact they're utterly opposed.

RPGPundit

I agree with your first sentence but not the second.
Gamma World: gonzo, not powergaming
Arduin: gonzo, heavy powergaming
Rifts: gonzo, even heavier powergaming
Synnibar: gonzo, your guy can deal millions of damage

The connection isn't automatic, but it is sure there. Most people who supplemented their D&D campaigns with Arduin material, for example, did it for two reasons - awesome (sometimes in the teenage sense... "Dude, my crit totally tore off his buttocks") and for increasing character power ("Dude, my character is a star-powered mage and she can cast mondo-powerful spells!"). In the minds of many adolescents, these are often one and the same.

Same goes double for lazerzswordz and robotz in fantasy environments

Quote from: MelanI agree with your first sentence but not the second.
Gamma World: gonzo, not powergaming
Arduin: gonzo, heavy powergaming
Rifts: gonzo, even heavier powergaming
Synnibar: gonzo, your guy can deal millions of damage

The connection isn't automatic, but it is sure there. Most people who supplemented their D&D campaigns with Arduin material, for example, did it for two reasons - awesome (sometimes in the teenage sense... "Dude, my crit totally tore off his buttocks") and for increasing character power ("Dude, my character is a star-powered mage and she can cast mondo-powerful spells!"). In the minds of many adolescents, these are often one and the same.

The man speaks wisdom. As a longtime Arduin fan, I can't pretend that there is not a long-standing correlation between 'gonzo' and powergaming.

Quote from: MelanI agree with your first sentence but not the second.
Gamma World: gonzo, not powergaming
Arduin: gonzo, heavy powergaming
Rifts: gonzo, even heavier powergaming
Synnibar: gonzo, your guy can deal millions of damage

The connection isn't automatic, but it is sure there. Most people who supplemented their D&D campaigns with Arduin material, for example, did it for two reasons - awesome (sometimes in the teenage sense... "Dude, my crit totally tore off his buttocks") and for increasing character power ("Dude, my character is a star-powered mage and she can cast mondo-powerful spells!"). In the minds of many adolescents, these are often one and the same.

You should note, I said "powergame min-maxing". There is of course a strong tradition of gonzo games where you get to do 2d4x10000000 points of damage with your portable reflex cannon.
But again, this is powergaming pure and simple.

Its not the pathetic sad powergaming of fiddling with little numbers to optimize your "character build".

RPGpundit