Quote from: John MorrowNo, I ran a D&D 3.5 campaign.  Part of the problem was that I never felt comfortable just winging it and fudging.  Actually writing up encounters, even with the help of automated NPC generators and other tools, can be very time consuming, in my opinion.  Not difficult.  Just time consuming, and not in a good way.

Can anybody explain why this is so? Is it your players, the system?

It party lost on me because of my experience with GURPS. Sure I made up detailed characters but I use plenty of "on the fly" NPCs with only a few important skills, and advantages.

To me D&D 3.X always played as a very light version of GURPS with skills as skills, feats as advantages and no mechanic for disadvantages.

Rob Conley

I long for the so-called "high" amounts of prep time from 3.x. Try running Exalted, which is a system where next to nothing has been statted. If you need something for your fight, you do it yourself or convert from an older edition that worked on a different power level.

Throwing together any sort of encounter was always fast and easy for me with 3.x. The presence of 4+ monster books meant whatever I needed was probably already out there somewhere. All it took was a brief stroll through the index.

Statting NPCs was also pretty quick unless the NPC was a major player. Grabbing a skeleton off the NPC charts in the DMG and tacking on a few PrC levels was easy as pie.

Don't get me wrong, I'm really enjoying running this Exalted campaign, but complaints about prep time from 3.x make me giggle.

Quote from: estarCan anybody explain why this is so? Is it your players, the system?

The D&D 3.5 system is very tightly packed with a lot of cross-dependencies and so on that can make a huge difference.  And if you start fudging and messing up those dependencies, it can not only be easy to figure out but can create balance and play problems.

Quote from: estarIt party lost on me because of my experience with GURPS. Sure I made up detailed characters but I use plenty of "on the fly" NPCs with only a few important skills, and advantages.

Oh, I can do the same in Fudge and I've run whole games like that with almost no prep.  But in D&D, everything relates and there are rules where you can't/shouldn't have X without Y.  Skills depend on characteristic levels and class levels, they have different maxes if they aren't class skills than if they are, Feats are dependent on class levels and each other, and so on.

I suppose you can blame me and my group for wanting everything to fit together but I just never felt comfortable fudging things like that.  It just didn't feel right.

Quote from: estarTo me D&D 3.X always played as a very light version of GURPS with skills as skills, feats as advantages and no mechanic for disadvantages.

But D&D adds classes and feat dependencies on top of that.  Yes, you can choose not to care about those things but the results, in my opinion, just feel wrong if they don't fit right.

Quote from: James McMurrayI long for the so-called "high" amounts of prep time from 3.x. Try running Exalted, which is a system where next to nothing has been statted. If you need something for your fight, you do it yourself or convert from an older edition that worked on a different power level.

Throwing together any sort of encounter was always fast and easy for me with 3.x. The presence of 4+ monster books meant whatever I needed was probably already out there somewhere. All it took was a brief stroll through the index.

Statting NPCs was also pretty quick unless the NPC was a major player. Grabbing a skeleton off the NPC charts in the DMG and tacking on a few PrC levels was easy as pie.

Don't get me wrong, I'm really enjoying running this Exalted campaign, but complaints about prep time from 3.x make me giggle.

Word up dawg.

Quote from: Settembrinihttp://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070827a&authentic=true

So much in there is wrong. I don't mean wrong in terms of how the game may be played, but just factually wrong. Older editions DID have rules for balancing encounters (done very, very well in BECM), you could balance encounters with many foes or few foes facing the PCs. So much of how monsters should fight tactically goes right back as far as chainmail!

I dunno... I think what bothers me is the lack of any understanding of how older versions of D&D were played. I'd expect better than that.

Quote from: CabSo much in there is wrong. I don't mean wrong in terms of how the game may be played, but just factually wrong. Older editions DID have rules for balancing encounters (done very, very well in BECM), you could balance encounters with many foes or few foes facing the PCs. So much of how monsters should fight tactically goes right back as far as chainmail!

I dunno... I think what bothers me is the lack of any understanding of how older versions of D&D were played. I'd expect better than that.

Unfortunately, even a lot of the older edition fans like to misrepresent the earlier versions in an attempt to slander 3e.

Just for the record, the closest I came to "balancing encounters" was to decide how many critters would be in the room. CR was at best a VERY rough guideline, but I put in what I thought SHOULD be there. That means there will be skeletons in one room that will be dispatched easily, and wights in another that will come >-< this close to finishing off the party, possibly.

Life is not balanced. Why should your duengeon be?

Quote from: John MorrowThe D&D 3.5 system is very tightly packed with a lot of cross-dependencies and so on that can make a huge difference.  And if you

I guess another difference with me is that my campaign with D&D was just the three books and a home brew booklet of prestige classes and feats like some of the ones found in the FR Setting book. I can see if I started using additional books it would be a problem.

Rob Conley

Quote from: J ArcaneUnfortunately, even a lot of the older edition fans like to misrepresent the earlier versions in an attempt to slander 3e.

True, its kind of a propaganda campaign. Or at least it seems like it. But from someone who is involved in game development I really would expect better.

Quote from: WerekoalaJust for the record, the closest I came to "balancing encounters" was to decide how many critters would be in the room. CR was at best a VERY rough guideline, but I put in what I thought SHOULD be there. That means there will be skeletons in one room that will be dispatched easily, and wights in another that will come >-< this close to finishing off the party, possibly.

Life is not balanced. Why should your duengeon be?

Not every encounter should be balanced, but when you design an adventure you need to know which encoutners are pushovers, which are good fights, and which monsters the PCs should be running away from. A good DM knows how to build an adventure around all of those.

Quote from: CabTrue, its kind of a propaganda campaign. Or at least it seems like it. But from someone who is involved in game development I really would expect better.

Well, thing is, Mearls is kind of a forum monkey like the rest of us, and likely exposed to a lot of the bogus myths and propoganda that these days have been plastered all over the web so much that a lot of people just believe it as fact.

As the saying goes, if you say something loud enough, and often enough, eventually it's as good as if it were really true.

Quote from: CabNot every encounter should be balanced, but when you design an adventure you need to know which encounters are pushovers, which are good fights, and which monsters the PCs should be running away from. A good DM knows how to build an adventure around all of those.

Agreed, in that CR isn't always the best judge of how an encounter will play out. My group is particularly clever, and with our military and law enforcement background small unit tactics is a common theme in their style of play-they're very good at building characters who support each other well, and fill a "role" in the party.

I tend to run encounters at about one or two levels above their ECL, once it's all averaged out. They done well for the most part, and once they even managed to pull off (By which I mostly mean live...well most of them anyways) an encounter that was four levels above their ECL.

Quote from: Serious PaulAgreed, in that CR isn't always the best judge of how an encounter will play out. My group is particularly clever, and with our military and law enforcement background small unit tactics is a common theme in their style of play-they're very good at building characters who support each other well, and fill a "role" in the party.

I tend to run encounters at about one or two levels above their ECL, once it's all averaged out. They done well for the most part, and once they even managed to pull off (By which I mostly mean live...well most of them anyways) an encounter that was four levels above their ECL.

I think that tools like CR and things like the balancing encounters rules in the old Companion set are really there to help inexperienced DMs. If you know your players, their characters and the game you're running then you can pretty much dispense with that kind of thing.

But the thing is, none of thats new; we've had tools to help DMs balance encounters for years, and we've had advice on how to play monsters as intelligent foes for longer. None of this is new, and I'm a little baffled by the fact that each edition of D&D seems to reinvent the same wheels over again.

Consumerism at it's best! Have to reprint all of the old books to make new money!

Quote from: estarI guess another difference with me is that my campaign with D&D was just the three books and a home brew booklet of prestige classes and feats like some of the ones found in the FR Setting book. I can see if I started using additional books it would be a problem.

If I were to do it again, I wouldn't allow most of the additional books.  That said, I did primarily just use the main SRD books.  My solution was that I'd give most of the NPCs things like "Improved Initiative" that were easy to manage.  I had to explain that one to the player when they got upset that the NPCs always had higher initiatives than they did.  It was actually due to good rolls more than the Improved Initiative, but that was also part of it.