TheRPGSite

I've tried using CR with Pathfinder, 4e and 5e, and so far, I wind up ignoring it or trying to reverse-engineer it to make sense to me.
My usual stumbling point is that the system assumes a party of X characters and one monster as it's base value. And I rarely use just one monster in an encounter. So I'm almost always having to apply some kind of modifier.

Anybody like it? Using it sucessfully?

I use it as a rough guideline for picking out a possible base for a creature roster.  That is, a CR 1/2 may or may not be weaker than a CR 1 and may or may be stronger than a CR 1/4, but it is definitely weaker than a CR 4, at least in most situations.  So when I'm picking out a roster, I use the CR listings and scan things in and around the party level.  Though I do think the CRs in Tome of Beasts are a better fit for me than the WotC stuff.  Maybe that's because I'm usually running for a large group.  Also, I'm only using the CR's as a guide for what to expect in a sandbox.  I'll use any creature that fits the area, some of which are things the characters will die if they fight and others are much weaker.

Then I ignore their information on how to scale for numbers (doesn't work right), assume that they've botched most of the CR's a little, and go from there.  The article the Angry GM did on putting monsters in Tiers is a more rigorous form of what I do.  I even think of the creatures in tiers, and did before his article. 

As for experience awards, that's way too much number crunching for not enough gain.  Take the average level of the characters and use the chart, adjusting up or down for toughness.  These are 5th level characters.  This seems like an adventure supposedly balanced for 4th level characters.  I'll give them experience as if every monster was right on the dot of 4th level toughness when you work it out the long way.  (I did it both ways for some time to check.  It's not enough difference to matter in even a short campaign.)  I'm not quite to the point of awarding experience by tiers, as the Angry GM does.  Would probably be there by now, but since I've abandoned WotC products and started using my own design that has monsters built in tiers from the ground up ...

A link to Part 2 of the Angry GM article referenced above:  CR-There Is a Better Way Part 2 (https://theangrygm.com/f-cr-theres-a-better-way-part-2/)

Follow up articles where he used it to build things:  How to CR Practical Example Part 2 (https://theangrygm.com/how-to-f-cr-practical-example-2/)

I've linked the end of the series, because he has links in them to the start of it.

Most of the time CR can't even be used for what it's for. A Difficult encounter isn't difficult but pathetically easy. In order to even use CR you have to constantly redo it to see what the current stat is compared with the newest player oriented overpowered aspects.

Not to mention the entire notion of encounter balance to begin with and the thought training it does on players who now expect ever encounter to be if not easy then at least winnable.

CR and the greater encounter systems are some of the worst things to happen to rpg's.

I use it as a rough baseline unfortunately imo CR does not take into account the power of even the most non-minimized character. Use it to get an idea of what the party can fight then alter accordingly. That being said I do like it because unlike previous editions of D&D it makes it easier to make encounters especially for new DMs.

I used CR successfully back in my 3e days and have incorporated it into my B/X and OD&D games. I don't really see the issue that others do as CR is the exact same mechanic as "Monster Level" from OD&D/AD&D. It even has the same problems (such as how in AD&D four 1 HD orcs are more of a threat than one 4 HD Ogre yet are worth fewer XP).

The only difference is that CR is scaled to character level rather than the arbitrary dungeon level, which as others have pointed out, makes it more useable in practice.

Besides the psychological aspects on players (which is really a problem with GMs and players, not the mechanic), the main issue with CR is false precision.  It's almost as if the designers skipped that part of 8th grade math where they talk about how using incorrect precision in mathematical operations can produce misleading results.  They certainly didn't remember it from high school chemistry that drives the point home, if it wasn't already.

That also is the main reason why the "Tier" approach manages to be simpler yet more accurate.  It doesn't take a bunch of wild guesses and then multiply and divide them several times in a formula--and then pretend that the answer is accurate.  It takes some broader guesses and does fewer, simpler calculations on them.

The execution isn't perfect, but I'd rather have the CR system as a ballpark than not have it at all. Especially useful for new GMs who don't have the experience to eyeball encounter difficulty.

While it could be better, I don't think it'd be possible to make it perfect anyway as there is too much table variation. How tough are undead? Depends if you have a cleric. etc.

I do agree that the one really annoying thing is how it seems to promote the idea of encounters being a single foe. There are rules for CR with multiple foes, but they're treated as an optional rule rather than the default. It'd be nice if the Monster Manual (or Bestiary or whatever) would give the CR of standard groupings of foes combined.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 23, 2021, 06:30:35 AM
I've tried using CR with Pathfinder, 4e and 5e, and so far, I wind up ignoring it or trying to reverse-engineer it to make sense to me.
My usual stumbling point is that the system assumes a party of X characters and one monster as it's base value. And I rarely use just one monster in an encounter. So I'm almost always having to apply some kind of modifier.

Anybody like it? Using it sucessfully?

I pretty much rewrote my entire system around fixing the CR system and its somewhat in line with the "CR-There Is a Better Way Part 2" article that Steven Mitchell linked to upthread.

The real honest to God key to a functional CR system from my experience (and why its never worked all that great in D&D) is that for it to be able to reliably measure anything you need the system to have linear instead of quadratic scaling.

In D&D, your improvement in combat is generally quadratic. Not only are you becoming more accurate, you're also dealing more damage per round. You're not only getting more hit points, you're also getting harder to hit.

So instead of five 1st level threats being of similar danger to you at 5th level as one was when you were 1st level. Its likely you'd need ten or even twenty (and maybe more) to present a credible threat to the PC. The result is that your challenge rating has to be quadratic if its going to measure anything accurately... Ex. a level 1 is CR1, a level 5 is CR10, a level 10 is CR40, etc.

But even that has its limits because, in 3e/4E, the scaling was so great that often a 10th level PC was virtually immune to any number of 1st level threats. 4E even directly referenced this with statements about how a solo monster at level 1 would have to be restated as an elite if facing the PCs at level 10, as a standard monster at level 20 and as a minion if the PCs encountered it at level 30. In one epic tier adventure they even statted up a legion of thousands of ghouls (heroic tier threats) as DIFFICULT TERRAIN for the PCs during a fight with an Exarch of Orcus.

My solution to creating a fully scalable and easily usable CR system (also a system that allowed mass battles without needing special conversion rules... the original purpose of the change) was to remove one of the axes of growth so that level progression was linear. Specifically, to-hit and defenses are almost static; about +10% over the entire range of the game; while damage and hit points scale linearly for both PCs and monsters.

The result is that you can more-or-less just use a monster's hit points to determine its relative threat to the PCs*. If a PC has 25 hp, then a group of monsters with a total of 25 hp will be a normal challenge for them. If an adventuring party has 220 hp, then monsters with about 220 hp will be a normal challenge, 330 hp will be a dangerous fight and one with 440 hp will almost certainly result in a TPK if the PCs don't beat a hasty retreat.

This also makes it easy to account for henchmen and hirelings in encounter balance too. Just add their hit points to the PCs side to determine what's going to be an easy, typical, hard or lethal fight for them.

* Its slightly more complicated than that since monsters can trade hit points for better defenses and visa versa, and can trade accuracy for damage and visa versa (that way there's more variety than just level between monsters); but the default "Challenge Point" value is just the pre-adjusted hit point total of the monster with everything else about the monster scaling in ratio with that.

Quote from: Gameogre on February 23, 2021, 08:08:01 AM
Most of the time CR can't even be used for what it's for. A Difficult encounter isn't difficult but pathetically easy. In order to even use CR you have to constantly redo it to see what the current stat is compared with the newest player oriented overpowered aspects.

Not to mention the entire notion of encounter balance to begin with and the thought training it does on players who now expect ever encounter to be if not easy then at least winnable.

CR and the greater encounter systems are some of the worst things to happen to rpg's.

I agree with you there. I find CR all but useless for my groups and enevitably beef up encounters by a good amount just to provide a challenge. It's more of a base line for me at this point. However I still remember the first encounter of 5e, the Goblins Arrows ambush from Lost Mine of Phandelver. Four total newbs to RPGs and me the old grognard DM... The first two characters were down on the first hit, the second two were badly mauled, and the NPC cleric was scrambling to revive the downed PCs. And that was round one. Four goblins of CR 1/4 versus 4 PCs with max base hit points (not counting CON bonus if any). I had to pull punches to avoid a TPK.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 23, 2021, 12:54:25 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 23, 2021, 06:30:35 AM
I've tried using CR with Pathfinder, 4e and 5e, and so far, I wind up ignoring it or trying to reverse-engineer it to make sense to me.
My usual stumbling point is that the system assumes a party of X characters and one monster as it's base value. And I rarely use just one monster in an encounter. So I'm almost always having to apply some kind of modifier.

Anybody like it? Using it sucessfully?

I pretty much rewrote my entire system around fixing the CR system and its somewhat in line with the "CR-There Is a Better Way Part 2" article that Steven Mitchell linked to upthread.

The real honest to God key to a functional CR system from my experience (and why its never worked all that great in D&D) is that for it to be able to reliably measure anything you need the system to have linear instead of quadratic scaling.

In D&D, your improvement in combat is generally quadratic. Not only are you becoming more accurate, you're also dealing more damage per round. You're not only getting more hit points, you're also getting harder to hit.

So instead of five 1st level threats being of similar danger to you at 5th level as one was when you were 1st level. Its likely you'd need ten or even twenty (and maybe more) to present a credible threat to the PC. The result is that your challenge rating has to be quadratic if its going to measure anything accurately... Ex. a level 1 is CR1, a level 5 is CR10, a level 10 is CR40, etc.

But even that has its limits because, in 3e/4E, the scaling was so great that often a 10th level PC was virtually immune to any number of 1st level threats. 4E even directly referenced this with statements about how a solo monster at level 1 would have to be restated as an elite if facing the PCs at level 10, as a standard monster at level 20 and as a minion if the PCs encountered it at level 30. In one epic tier adventure they even statted up a legion of thousands of ghouls (heroic tier threats) as DIFFICULT TERRAIN for the PCs during a fight with an Exarch of Orcus.

My solution to creating a fully scalable and easily usable CR system (also a system that allowed mass battles without needing special conversion rules... the original purpose of the change) was to remove one of the axes of growth so that level progression was linear. Specifically, to-hit and defenses are almost static; about +10% over the entire range of the game; while damage and hit points scale linearly for both PCs and monsters.

The result is that you can more-or-less just use a monster's hit points to determine its relative threat to the PCs*. If a PC has 25 hp, then a group of monsters with a total of 25 hp will be a normal challenge for them. If an adventuring party has 220 hp, then monsters with about 220 hp will be a normal challenge, 330 hp will be a dangerous fight and one with 440 hp will almost certainly result in a TPK if the PCs don't beat a hasty retreat.

This also makes it easy to account for henchmen and hirelings in encounter balance too. Just add their hit points to the PCs side to determine what's going to be an easy, typical, hard or lethal fight for them.

* Its slightly more complicated than that since monsters can trade hit points for better defenses and visa versa, and can trade accuracy for damage and visa versa (that way there's more variety than just level between monsters); but the default "Challenge Point" value is just the pre-adjusted hit point total of the monster with everything else about the monster scaling in ratio with that.

Using HP as guideline is what I found myself doing as well. I know that my group can do X amount of damage on average and can take X amount per round so I have been adding extra mobs to encounters with base HP or increasing boss HP to compensate. It seems to be working fine whilst still providing a decent challenge. Still get a good amount of downed PCs but so far no deaths from missed saves or massive damage.

We had this discussion here when 5e came out.

Overall CR works as a base idea of possible challenge. But way way way too many try to use it as an absolute gauge and then wonder why it keeps failing. After a point I just go back to eyeballing the overall stats and using accordingly rather than CR.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on February 23, 2021, 08:26:10 AM
I used CR successfully back in my 3e days and have incorporated it into my B/X and OD&D games. I don't really see the issue that others do as CR is the exact same mechanic as "Monster Level" from OD&D/AD&D. It even has the same problems (such as how in AD&D four 1 HD orcs are more of a threat than one 4 HD Ogre yet are worth fewer XP).

The only difference is that CR is scaled to character level rather than the arbitrary dungeon level, which as others have pointed out, makes it more useable in practice.

That's the thing. Using HD I had very few problems.
You have two baselines. Total HD compared to total party Levels, and individual HD compared to individual character Level. More HD = harder encounter, less HD = easier encounter.
The one issue that later editions pointed out is action economy. Less actions (solo monster versus group) can be a huge disadvantage.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 23, 2021, 06:30:35 AM
My usual stumbling point is that the system assumes a party of X characters and one monster as it's base value. And I rarely use just one monster in an encounter. So I'm almost always having to apply some kind of modifier.

I find the examples to be confusing unless I happen to have exactly the same number of characters as the example.

As others have noted, additional attacks from the four 1-HD orcs make them more deadly in many ways than the one 4-HD ogre, and it never seems like this is accounted for correctly. I assume that one could create a chart with # of characters on one axis and CR on another, and then when you cross-reference you could get a true difficulty level for the encounter, but to do that I have to get a better grasp of the examples and how to adjust for multiple characters or multiple monsters.

Love the idea in concept, but like others I just eyeball it and cross my fingers.

I just treat it like AD&D Monster Level - a very rough guide to threat level, not something to build encounters with (late 4e was the only D&D version where 'encounter building' worked). I prefer status quo sandboxing with a big PC group who know when to run!

Oh, I do use BTB XP in my current game, so Challenge determines XP rewards if you beat the monster.

Quote from: S'mon on February 23, 2021, 04:06:59 PM
I just treat it like AD&D Monster Level - a very rough guide to threat level, not something to build encounters with (late 4e was the only D&D version where 'encounter building' worked). I prefer status quo sandboxing with a big PC group who know when to run!

Oh, I do use BTB XP in my current game, so Challenge determines XP rewards if you beat the monster.

Now you've done it!

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/how-do-you-handle-retreat/new/#new

I find it amazing that a game that worries so much about balance--as D&D has since 3e--can't figure out a way to make a CR system (or some other measure of "encounter balance") worth a shit. Sure, not everyone would use such a system even if it were flawless, but I'd rather not have a greatly flawed system that many do try to use fucking up a game.

Quote from: finarvyn on February 23, 2021, 04:04:00 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 23, 2021, 06:30:35 AM
My usual stumbling point is that the system assumes a party of X characters and one monster as it's base value. And I rarely use just one monster in an encounter. So I'm almost always having to apply some kind of modifier.

I find the examples to be confusing unless I happen to have exactly the same number of characters as the example.

As others have noted, additional attacks from the four 1-HD orcs make them more deadly in many ways than the one 4-HD ogre, and it never seems like this is accounted for correctly. I assume that one could create a chart with # of characters on one axis and CR on another, and then when you cross-reference you could get a true difficulty level for the encounter, but to do that I have to get a better grasp of the examples and how to adjust for multiple characters or multiple monsters.

Love the idea in concept, but like others I just eyeball it and cross my fingers.

Donjon has a 5th ed encounter calculator. I haven't used it yet, so I don't know how effective/accurate it is.

https://donjon.bin.sh/5e/calc/enc_size.html

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 23, 2021, 05:06:05 PM
I find it amazing that a game that worries so much about balance--as D&D has since 3e--can't figure out a way to make a CR system (or some other measure of "encounter balance") worth a shit. Sure, not everyone would use such a system even if it were flawless, but I'd rather not have a greatly flawed system that many do try to use fucking up a game.

It's what you get when you go backwards reflexively out of fear.

4E had a lot of flaws, but it's way of balancing encounters was more accurate and easier to use than CR.  13th Age uses the same system.

One Level 4 monster is considered a threat to one level 4 character.  So if you have a party of four you want 4 level 4 monsters.  What could be easier than that?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 23, 2021, 06:30:35 AM
I've tried using CR...Anybody like it? Using it sucessfully?

I used CR when I was ran some 3e games. I found it to be of limited use, at best. I get better (and faster) results eyeballing things with hit dice and monster special abilities, rather than trying to apply a formula that is bound to require all sorts of modifiers based on the circumstances.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on February 23, 2021, 08:26:10 AM
I used CR successfully back in my 3e days and have incorporated it into my B/X and OD&D games. I don't really see the issue that others do as CR is the exact same mechanic as "Monster Level" from OD&D/AD&D. It even has the same problems (such as how in AD&D four 1 HD orcs are more of a threat than one 4 HD Ogre yet are worth fewer XP).

The only difference is that CR is scaled to character level rather than the arbitrary dungeon level, which as others have pointed out, makes it more useable in practice.

This echoes my own experience with using CR; but to be fair 3e was my only usage of such.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 23, 2021, 05:06:05 PM
I find it amazing that a game that worries so much about balance--as D&D has since 3e--can't figure out a way to make a CR system (or some other measure of "encounter balance") worth a shit. Sure, not everyone would use such a system even if it were flawless, but I'd rather not have a greatly flawed system that many do try to use fucking up a game.

It's because the newer versions of D&D have almost no balance.  They can't.  As the number of "fiddly bits" in character abilities, powers, spells, etc., increase, the ability to "balance" the game (i.e. have similar outcomes across varied characters) grows more and more difficult.  The more character "choices," the more that unexpected synergies crop up.

It's also the reason that people who complain that the game was less balanced in the early editions are objectively wrong (at least with respect to combat efficiency).  While fighters and magic-users definitely had different power curves, there were no "builds" to create synergies (the best you could do is find complimentary magic items).  It was far easier to have a consistent play experience (combat-wise) in AD&D than in 5e, so "CR" was unneeded (HD worked well enough).

This is why 5e's CR system is hot garbage.  First, it cannot take into account monster's own ability synergies; second, it cannot factor in the action economy.  Third, it cannot account for PC builds or variable effectiveness.  At most, it is a simple reflection of a monster's HP, to hit, and damage potential per round.  And, honestly, you'd be better off just listing monsters by those qualities than trying to create a system that can design the "proper" number of encounters per day via "experience budgets," etc.

And all this is only a problem if you subscribe to the very modern notion that every encounter (combat or no) should be scaled so that it is winnable by the party (survivable is different).  Some of my party's very best experiences have been fighting retreats while they are getting mauled, setting up a revenge fight several levels later.  It's why I lament that 5e's random encounter tables are by CR first, and not by environment.  If you're on the plains of the Serengeti, you don't get to not encounter a lion just because you aren't prepared to face one...

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.

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.

I see you are agreeing with me (based on what I posted above).  Older versions never cared about encounter balance at all.  Combat balance is different...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 24, 2021, 03:35:05 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.

I see you are agreeing with me (based on what I posted above).  Older versions never cared about encounter balance at all.  Combat balance is different...

Is the DM supposed to try and balance 2d100 Orcs?

You cant talk about ADnD and Balance except to say ADnD is not at all balanced.

Balance Shmalance.

I remember someone, can't remember who exactly, did an analysis of a lot of the 1e modules and found that they actually matched fairly well with the guidelines given in the 3.0 PHB (That is the actual guidelines where some encounters are CR+6 not the delusion of perfect balance that the player base arrived at).

The problem is not really CR - except for the fact that it promotes a certain mindset that involves a slippery slope to perfect balance.

If you were to take guidelines as a general approach to stocking a dungeon it's fine - probably redundant because eyeballing works just as well - but for the mathematically anal it at least gives them something to do.

It's when games become linear 'adventures' with necessary combat set pieces that balance at the encounter level also becomes necessary.  Because if a fight in an alley with a bunch of goons is always going to happen, then it had better be winnable.

But obviously you do care about balance in AD&D.  Fill a dungeon with monsters all of which have 8 HD or more and see how much fun it is.  AD&D modules come with suggested level ranges.  It's just that the notion of balance doesn't exist on a pure  encounter level - it's there on an environmental level - which means that some of the encounters may not be winnable, or extremely difficult to win.

WOTC keep designing CR systems with the intention that they should be used at an environmental level - and people keep expecting and wanting them to work at the level of the individual encounter.

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.

Quote from: TJS on February 24, 2021, 03:54:42 PM
I remember someone, can't remember who exactly, did an analysis of a lot of the 1e modules and found that they actually matched fairly well with the guidelines given in the 3.0 PHB (That is the actual guidelines where some encounters are CR+6 not the delusion of perfect balance that the player based arrived at).

The dungeon stocking rules for the 3.0 DMG actually produces more high level monster encounters than the similar dungeon stocking tables in the AD&D DMG. The second 3.0 adventure published, Forge of Fury for 3rd level characters, famously had a Roper encounter in it. Something that would devastate any party that chose to actually fight it. (My players floated some dead orcs down the river the Roper was guarding and then snuck past it while it was gorging on the bodies.)

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.

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

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.  8)

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.  8)

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.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 26, 2021, 11:49:49 AM

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.

Look at Iron Man, he is always leveling up with every movie until at the end of his arc he has infinite power.  How is that not zero to hero?

Quote from: TJS on February 26, 2021, 01:30:40 AM

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.  8)

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

Posts like these are a strong argument for why forums should have a "like" button...

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 26, 2021, 11:49:49 AM

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.

The stories of Hercules aren't a game.

You know that of course, but I feel compelled to mention it because it always amazes me how often white room theorizing seems to forget that. We simply can't emulate the myths, legends, and stories in the RPG. Or if we could, it would suck, because different media have different demands, and many things that work in a story won't work in a game, and vice versa. We can be inspired by other media, and evoke some of the elements we like, but it will never be particularly close. Look at how much comics or books have to change to make good movies, and then multiply it because RPGs are an interactive, collaborative, and primarily oral medium, which much further away from narratively plotted pre-packaged stories, than expressions of those stories in different media are from each other.

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 02:24:48 AM
The stories of Hercules aren't a game.

Thank you for summing up in one sentence the problem I always seemed to have, but could never entirely put my finger on, with Box's ideas about gaming.

He wants it all to be a story. Stories don't typically categorize undead into dozens of different types with different names... so Box wants every undead smashed into one critter with a single name (ex. wights in GoT) because that is how it would work in a story. Stories also often feature unique monsters; there's one Minotaur, one Medusa, etc.

Meanwhile, my gamer brain takes one look at those ideas and says "why would you want to add confusion and/or extra work for the GM by lumping a bunch of monsters under the same name and possibly just having a single stat block the GM has to adjust to match the level of the PCs."

Stories also rarely make distinctions between more than a couple types of magic, so Box sees no point in having distinctions between a druid, cleric of a nature god and warlock with a nature patron.

Meanwhile I see all the ways the different classes could appeal to different play styles and allow different experiences in different campaigns.

Stories tend to have relatively flat skill growth (maybe a magic protagonist gets a better handle on their abilities in an origin story or learns a specific spell to deal with an episodic McGuffin) so Box doesn't feel PCs need as much growth as a typical RPG presents.

I do somewhat agree in the sense that infinite vertical progression can lead to needless number inflation that slows things down (quick, what's 6 + 7 + 38... that's what a basic attack in 4E at high levels could look like), but that doesn't mean PCs should remain static. My own sentiment is to cap vertical progression at some point before the numbers get too large, but then allow infinite lateral progression after that

Box seems mostly interested in RPGs as a system to create stories rather than as a system to create a good time among friends. My feeling on CR systems is that a good one can make it easier to get those good times by allowing the GM to easily judge the degree of difficulty they're setting up (and old school HD with *s where each denoted abilities that made a monster tougher than HD alone indicated worked VERY well as a CR system). A bad CR system though can make it harder to get a handle on what will make a good encounter and so the system would be improved with no CR system at all.

Or the short version... good CR system > no CR system > bad CR system.

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 02:24:48 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 26, 2021, 11:49:49 AM

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.

The stories of Hercules aren't a game.

You know that of course, but I feel compelled to mention it because it always amazes me how often white room theorizing seems to forget that. We simply can't emulate the myths, legends, and stories in the RPG. Or if we could, it would suck, because different media have different demands, and many things that work in a story won't work in a game, and vice versa. We can be inspired by other media, and evoke some of the elements we like, but it will never be particularly close. Look at how much comics or books have to change to make good movies, and then multiply it because RPGs are an interactive, collaborative, and primarily oral medium, which much further away from narratively plotted pre-packaged stories, than expressions of those stories in different media are from each other.

I was arguing against Shasarak's conflating of leveling with archetypes. There is a clear difference between the two, as you say. You're exactly right. What works for a story doesn't work for a game, and vice versa. That's why I'm annoyed by seeing so many writers using some variation of leveling as a crutch rather than writing good stories. Leveling wasn't created to help build stories, it was created to give players a feeling of accomplishment. The same designers who designed leveling also played games where it was normal for PCs to constantly die and be replaced. That isn't remotely conducive to telling a coherent story. Games are not stories, and vice versa. That's why D&D fiction doesn't resemble gameplay at all.

Actually, I think there are pretty solid 'Zero to Hero' stories in well....adventure stories.

Those often have a prolonged story with lots of twists and turns and points where the characters get stronger or develop new skills to take on stronger foes.

The hero's journey is like one of the key stories ever, and it involves character skill growth.

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 02:24:48 AM

The stories of Hercules aren't a game.

Yep. D&D was never a scholarly tome attempting to accuratley represnt the myths of the world. It's a game inspired by old myths and current interpretations of them. IE "Tolkenized fantasy".

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 01:20:34 PM
I was arguing against Shasarak's conflating of leveling with archetypes.

What I actually said was:

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.

Which says nothing at all about the buddy adventure of Sherlock Holmes and Heracles.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2021, 02:33:45 PM
Actually, I think there are pretty solid 'Zero to Hero' stories in well....adventure stories.

Those often have a prolonged story with lots of twists and turns and points where the characters get stronger or develop new skills to take on stronger foes.

The hero's journey is like one of the key stories ever, and it involves character skill growth.

Not exactly ever. The hero's journey was more or less invented by Campbell by stitching together various bits and pieces of folklore. Very few stories written pre-Campbell use more than two or three of the stages. Post-Campbell, it is common to see stories using most or all 17 stages because those stories were directly influenced by him. It's a pretty common critique of his analysis.

Also, Campbell's monomyth doesn't describe D&D-style leveling anyway. It was used to describe storytelling patterns, not level-based gameplay. Invoking Campbell's monomyth is irrelevant to criticisms of leveling.

I don't have any problem with skill growth (which isn't to say skill-based systems are perfect, they have their own problems (http://rampantgames.com/blog/?p=3726)). It's leveling that I'm criticizing, and more specifically how it impacts monster design.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 27, 2021, 03:32:56 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 02:24:48 AM

The stories of Hercules aren't a game.

Yep. D&D was never a scholarly tome attempting to accuratley represnt the myths of the world. It's a game inspired by old myths and current interpretations of them. IE "Tolkenized fantasy".

Yep. To add: It was an outgrowth of wargames that took inspiration from a variety of sources beyond Tolkien, such as pulp fiction and Stormbringer. Besides some surface-level imitation, D&D actually has very little in common with Tolkien's actual themes and approach to world building.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 27, 2021, 05:07:14 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 01:20:34 PM
I was arguing against Shasarak's conflating of leveling with archetypes.

What I actually said was:

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.

Which says nothing at all about the buddy adventure of Sherlock Holmes and Heracles.

I never said I disliked the "zero to hero" trope. I'm criticizing the additional scaling you see in level-based game design, where it's zero to level 1, level 2, level 10, ad infinitum. And more specifically relevant to this thread, how it impacts monster design by mandating that designers keep inventing (often redundant) monsters to fill the various level brackets.

Also, the zero to hero trope is irrelevant anyway because leveling was never intended to represent storytelling tropes. It's about making players feel like they've accomplished something. D&D is a game, not a story.

D&D's scaling doesn't really work very well in terms of stories.

There are story of ordinary people and their foibles such as in ancient comedies and there are highly mythic tales of larger then heroes, written in a heightened tone, that do battle with gods and demons, but the former don't usually turn into the latter after a period of time - in fact they belong to completely different genres (in the classical sense).

Is it a problem?  Depends what D&D you are playing - one of the 3rd level characters in the B/X game I'm playing in right now has 4 hps. 

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 05:51:51 PM
Also, the zero to hero trope is irrelevant anyway because leveling was never intended to represent storytelling tropes. It's about making players feel like they've accomplished something. D&D is a game, not a story.

Going from a 1st level nobody to a 20th level Hero is irrelevant to the Architypal Zero to Hero story?

Quote from: Shasarak on February 27, 2021, 06:37:32 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 05:51:51 PM
Also, the zero to hero trope is irrelevant anyway because leveling was never intended to represent storytelling tropes. It's about making players feel like they've accomplished something. D&D is a game, not a story.

Going from a 1st level nobody to a 20th level Hero is irrelevant to the Architypal Zero to Hero story?

Gandalf was a 5th-level magic-user.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 07:01:42 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 27, 2021, 06:37:32 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 05:51:51 PM
Also, the zero to hero trope is irrelevant anyway because leveling was never intended to represent storytelling tropes. It's about making players feel like they've accomplished something. D&D is a game, not a story.

Going from a 1st level nobody to a 20th level Hero is irrelevant to the Architypal Zero to Hero story?

Gandalf was a 5th-level magic-user.

Excuse me, 5th level Druid.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 27, 2021, 07:23:01 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 07:01:42 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 27, 2021, 06:37:32 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 05:51:51 PM
Also, the zero to hero trope is irrelevant anyway because leveling was never intended to represent storytelling tropes. It's about making players feel like they've accomplished something. D&D is a game, not a story.

Going from a 1st level nobody to a 20th level Hero is irrelevant to the Architypal Zero to Hero story?

Gandalf was a 5th-level magic-user.

Excuse me, 5th level Druid.

And a god. Or angel, at least. Does that mean Gandalf is a divine caster who grants himself spells?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 01:20:34 PM
I was arguing against Shasarak's conflating of leveling with archetypes. There is a clear difference between the two, as you say. You're exactly right. What works for a story doesn't work for a game, and vice versa. That's why I'm annoyed by seeing so many writers using some variation of leveling as a crutch rather than writing good stories. Leveling wasn't created to help build stories, it was created to give players a feeling of accomplishment. The same designers who designed leveling also played games where it was normal for PCs to constantly die and be replaced. That isn't remotely conducive to telling a coherent story. Games are not stories, and vice versa. That's why D&D fiction doesn't resemble gameplay at all.

There's a subgenre of Shonen anime that's built around the concept of continually leveling up. Dragonball Z is a classic example (my power level is over 9000!), Demon Slayer is a modern one, and One Punch Man parodies it. It's fascinating, because it's a storytelling structure that was clearly borrowed from tabletop RPGs, although second-hand via video games instead of being directly inspired. And it works quite well, at least for the audience (teenage boys looking for macho power fantasies). But even a clearly derived element like this is highly modified from its origins. For instance, the leveling up on those stories follows predictable dramatic beats, instead of being something that's earned and accounted for by players. It's very different both in implementation and purpose.

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 07:41:38 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 01:20:34 PM
I was arguing against Shasarak's conflating of leveling with archetypes. There is a clear difference between the two, as you say. You're exactly right. What works for a story doesn't work for a game, and vice versa. That's why I'm annoyed by seeing so many writers using some variation of leveling as a crutch rather than writing good stories. Leveling wasn't created to help build stories, it was created to give players a feeling of accomplishment. The same designers who designed leveling also played games where it was normal for PCs to constantly die and be replaced. That isn't remotely conducive to telling a coherent story. Games are not stories, and vice versa. That's why D&D fiction doesn't resemble gameplay at all.

There's a subgenre of Shonen anime that's built around the concept of continually leveling up. Dragonball Z is a classic example (my power level is over 9000!), Demon Slayer is a modern one, and One Punch Man parodies it. It's fascinating, because it's a storytelling structure that was clearly borrowed from tabletop RPGs, although second-hand via video games instead of being directly inspired. And it works quite well, at least for the audience (teenage boys looking for macho power fantasies). But even a clearly derived element like this is highly modified from its origins. For instance, the leveling up on those stories follows predictable dramatic beats, instead of being something that's earned and accounted for by players. It's very different both in implementation and purpose.

Yeah, it works well for its audience. I'm not that audience.

Number crunching Shonen with power levels is made to sell toys to young boys.

Its largely trash writing and power levels have only made anime worse from a storytelling perspective. And I don't mean some hoity toity 'Art' way. I mean fights are less engaging when its one side throwing its numbers against another until the MC says 'Friendshiiiiip' and then their numbers go up.

I think a better example of 'Zero to hero' is something like Avatar the last airbender. The characters go from struggling against 5 mooks or so, to taking down airship armadas, but it doesn't feel inorganic or the characters just throwing their powers around.

QuoteGandalf was a 5th-level magic-user.

Gandalf was astral deva with 1 level of fighter.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 08:32:17 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 07:41:38 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 01:20:34 PM
I was arguing against Shasarak's conflating of leveling with archetypes. There is a clear difference between the two, as you say. You're exactly right. What works for a story doesn't work for a game, and vice versa. That's why I'm annoyed by seeing so many writers using some variation of leveling as a crutch rather than writing good stories. Leveling wasn't created to help build stories, it was created to give players a feeling of accomplishment. The same designers who designed leveling also played games where it was normal for PCs to constantly die and be replaced. That isn't remotely conducive to telling a coherent story. Games are not stories, and vice versa. That's why D&D fiction doesn't resemble gameplay at all.

There's a subgenre of Shonen anime that's built around the concept of continually leveling up. Dragonball Z is a classic example (my power level is over 9000!), Demon Slayer is a modern one, and One Punch Man parodies it. It's fascinating, because it's a storytelling structure that was clearly borrowed from tabletop RPGs, although second-hand via video games instead of being directly inspired. And it works quite well, at least for the audience (teenage boys looking for macho power fantasies). But even a clearly derived element like this is highly modified from its origins. For instance, the leveling up on those stories follows predictable dramatic beats, instead of being something that's earned and accounted for by players. It's very different both in implementation and purpose.

Yeah, it works well for its audience. I'm not that audience.

I would be very surprised if anyone on this board was part of its audience. As I mentioned, it's aimed at a very specific demographic.

Well, I found a "Lazy DM" video on the topic of CR that I really liked.

Quote from: Pat on February 25, 2021, 05:22:43 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 25, 2021, 02:44:44 PM
...

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. ...

It is not a bad habit in and of itself.

Works great for D&D.

But a Competent protagonist doing heroic stuff is also an Archetype. Which is why Zero to hero does not fit all genre's.

A more competent character and a more gradual XP power curve in RPG's is my personal preference.

But I do fully recognize that I am very much in the minority in this.

There is no arguing against zero to hero's success as a gaming structure for sure.

Quote from: Pat on February 25, 2021, 05:22:43 PM
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 ...

Yes, E6 proved that the core d20 system could be adapted to a narrower power range and be perfectly fine.

I don't really care about classes and levels. But for me, the scaling caused by D&D style HP bloat is a bit off putting when applied to genre's that it doesn't really fit.

Like the d20 Conan, of even AiME. Both did decent jobs trying to get the tone of their respective IP's across in the game. But keeping D&D's standard HP bloat imposes a certain playstyle dynamic.

If I had to guess, they both wanted to be as 'Edition compatible' as possible. But IMHO they would have been better served genre wise by having the system cap HP at a given level, and tuning the rest of the game to match.

Quote from: Jaeger on March 02, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
But a Competent protagonist doing heroic stuff is also an Archetype. Which is why Zero to hero does not fit all genre's.

A more competent character and a more gradual XP power curve in RPG's is my personal preference.

But I do fully recognize that I am very much in the minority in this.

There is no arguing against zero to hero's success as a gaming structure for sure.

It's not about genre, though. Leveling is a game mechanic that incentivizes players, and doesn't really match any traditional genre or narrative structure. You can draw parallels to something like the hero's journey, but the parallels are very weak and not terribly useful except for borrowing a few trappings.

Starting out as highly competent also works, but requires a different game structure. A good example is Marvel Super Heroes, which mechanically engages players using a constant flow of rewards (karma), which are highly responsive to the players' immediate actions.

A completely different model is something like GURPS, which doesn't provide any similar, strong incentives. Instead, it relies other elements of the game, like perfectly emulating the concept in your head, all the vehicles-like fiddliness, and getting the mechanics out of the way to focus more on the story than the gamist incentives. (Yes, the last two examples contradict each other -- you can run the game both ways.)

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:13:55 PM
It's not about genre, though. Leveling is a game mechanic that incentivizes players, and doesn't really match any traditional genre or narrative structure. You can draw parallels to something like the hero's journey, but the parallels are very weak and not terribly useful except for borrowing a few trappings.

I am trying to think of one way that Zero to Hero does not match exactly with the leveling system.

Maybe no Training montage leveling system?  Help me out here Pat

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:35:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:13:55 PM
It's not about genre, though. Leveling is a game mechanic that incentivizes players, and doesn't really match any traditional genre or narrative structure. You can draw parallels to something like the hero's journey, but the parallels are very weak and not terribly useful except for borrowing a few trappings.

I am trying to think of one way that Zero to Hero does not match exactly with the leveling system.

Maybe no Training montage leveling system?  Help me out here Pat

Name one myth or legend that uses zero to hero in the same way as a leveling system.

In Fantasy Hero (at least in 4th edition Hero starting with 150 point characters), there is a related but different dynamic to leveling.  With those point totals, the characters are reasonably competent but still have a lot of things they want to improve or buy.  The typical FH reward is 2-5 points, mostly on the lower end except for longer sessions.  Most things the characters want at first cost about that many points, or maybe a few more.  It's more incremental, but the increments are still meaningful.  Basically, every session, I get the next thing I want or I get a major chunk of the points needed to get it next time.   In some ways, it is a bigger dopamine hit than earlier D&D with its several sessions to get the next level.

You could do zero to hero in FH by starting around 25-50 points, but would need to change the points gained over time.  It's a slog starting that low at first and then up around the 250 point level, the character is hardly moving.   With the rules as written, there's no similar rush starting at 50 or at 250--almost a different game.

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:44:24 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:35:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:13:55 PM
It's not about genre, though. Leveling is a game mechanic that incentivizes players, and doesn't really match any traditional genre or narrative structure. You can draw parallels to something like the hero's journey, but the parallels are very weak and not terribly useful except for borrowing a few trappings.

I am trying to think of one way that Zero to Hero does not match exactly with the leveling system.

Maybe no Training montage leveling system?  Help me out here Pat

Name one myth or legend that uses zero to hero in the same way as a leveling system.

Wheel of Time

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:56:31 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:44:24 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:35:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:13:55 PM
It's not about genre, though. Leveling is a game mechanic that incentivizes players, and doesn't really match any traditional genre or narrative structure. You can draw parallels to something like the hero's journey, but the parallels are very weak and not terribly useful except for borrowing a few trappings.

I am trying to think of one way that Zero to Hero does not match exactly with the leveling system.

Maybe no Training montage leveling system?  Help me out here Pat

Name one myth or legend that uses zero to hero in the same way as a leveling system.

Wheel of Time

You idiot, you forgot Jesus!  Totally Zero to Hero - starts off being able to do nothing and by the end can heal the sick, turn water into wine and walk on water.

By the end he has so many hit points it takes him all day to die.

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:56:31 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:44:24 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:35:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:13:55 PM
It's not about genre, though. Leveling is a game mechanic that incentivizes players, and doesn't really match any traditional genre or narrative structure. You can draw parallels to something like the hero's journey, but the parallels are very weak and not terribly useful except for borrowing a few trappings.

I am trying to think of one way that Zero to Hero does not match exactly with the leveling system.

Maybe no Training montage leveling system?  Help me out here Pat

Name one myth or legend that uses zero to hero in the same way as a leveling system.

Wheel of Time

Yes, that's one of those traditional stories that's been been passed down orally since the world was new and computers were big boxes.

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 07:02:06 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:56:31 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:44:24 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:35:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:13:55 PM
It's not about genre, though. Leveling is a game mechanic that incentivizes players, and doesn't really match any traditional genre or narrative structure. You can draw parallels to something like the hero's journey, but the parallels are very weak and not terribly useful except for borrowing a few trappings.

I am trying to think of one way that Zero to Hero does not match exactly with the leveling system.

Maybe no Training montage leveling system?  Help me out here Pat

Name one myth or legend that uses zero to hero in the same way as a leveling system.

Wheel of Time

Yes, that's one of those traditional stories that's been been passed down orally since the world was new and computers were big boxes.

Sorry that 80 million copies sold does not reach your high standard of something no one has heard of.

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 07:04:25 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 07:02:06 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:56:31 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:44:24 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:35:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:13:55 PM
It's not about genre, though. Leveling is a game mechanic that incentivizes players, and doesn't really match any traditional genre or narrative structure. You can draw parallels to something like the hero's journey, but the parallels are very weak and not terribly useful except for borrowing a few trappings.

I am trying to think of one way that Zero to Hero does not match exactly with the leveling system.

Maybe no Training montage leveling system?  Help me out here Pat

Name one myth or legend that uses zero to hero in the same way as a leveling system.

Wheel of Time

Yes, that's one of those traditional stories that's been been passed down orally since the world was new and computers were big boxes.

Sorry that 80 million copies sold does not reach your high standard of something no one has heard of.

Still not a traditional myth or legend, which is what we were talking about.

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 07:37:17 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 07:04:25 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 07:02:06 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:56:31 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:44:24 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:35:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:13:55 PM
It's not about genre, though. Leveling is a game mechanic that incentivizes players, and doesn't really match any traditional genre or narrative structure. You can draw parallels to something like the hero's journey, but the parallels are very weak and not terribly useful except for borrowing a few trappings.

I am trying to think of one way that Zero to Hero does not match exactly with the leveling system.

Maybe no Training montage leveling system?  Help me out here Pat

Name one myth or legend that uses zero to hero in the same way as a leveling system.

Wheel of Time

Yes, that's one of those traditional stories that's been been passed down orally since the world was new and computers were big boxes.

Sorry that 80 million copies sold does not reach your high standard of something no one has heard of.

Still not a traditional myth or legend, which is what we were talking about.

Since when is Jesus not part of traditional myth or legend?

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 08:26:28 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 07:37:17 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 07:04:25 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 07:02:06 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:56:31 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:44:24 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 06:35:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:13:55 PM
It's not about genre, though. Leveling is a game mechanic that incentivizes players, and doesn't really match any traditional genre or narrative structure. You can draw parallels to something like the hero's journey, but the parallels are very weak and not terribly useful except for borrowing a few trappings.

I am trying to think of one way that Zero to Hero does not match exactly with the leveling system.

Maybe no Training montage leveling system?  Help me out here Pat

Name one myth or legend that uses zero to hero in the same way as a leveling system.

Wheel of Time

Yes, that's one of those traditional stories that's been been passed down orally since the world was new and computers were big boxes.

Sorry that 80 million copies sold does not reach your high standard of something no one has heard of.

Still not a traditional myth or legend, which is what we were talking about.

Since when is Jesus not part of traditional myth or legend?

Didn't know Jesus was a protagonist in the Wheel of Time.

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 08:27:44 PM
Didn't know Jesus was a protagonist in the Wheel of Time.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD6qtc2_AQA/maxresdefault.jpg)

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:13:55 PM
It's not about genre, though. Leveling is a game mechanic that incentivizes players, and doesn't really match any traditional genre or narrative structure...

Starting out as highly competent also works, but requires a different game structure. ...

I Don't think the structure has to be so different that one would have to switch to something like Gurps.

You don't have to start out highly competent. Reasonably so is fine. And "Leveling" is just an advancement reward mechanism.

Take 5e D&D. It could be hacked to start all PC's at a level 3 baseline. Reasonably competent.

You stop all HP advancement. Capped at level 3. You would have to adjust monster HP and Damage to match the new scale. I'd personally also hack/Trim the spell list/advancement to match *insert preferred magic level here*. And leave the rest of the leveling advancements pretty much the same.

Boom, you have a lower-powered game where the PC's start competent, and get more heroic overtime; they can do more damage, and are a bit harder to hit, etc.. But the fixed HP would give the PC's a baseline vulnerability that wouldn't be there in the standard 5e D&D HP level bloat model.

What I am getting at is that By Fixing HP at a given point, the d20/D&D system can be adjusted to better fit different genre's than it would if you just left the standard HP level bloat in.

Quote from: Jaeger on March 02, 2021, 09:37:41 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2021, 06:13:55 PM
It's not about genre, though. Leveling is a game mechanic that incentivizes players, and doesn't really match any traditional genre or narrative structure...

Starting out as highly competent also works, but requires a different game structure. ...

I Don't think the structure has to be so different that one would have to switch to something like Gurps.

You don't have to start out highly competent. Reasonably so is fine. And "Leveling" is just an advancement reward mechanism.

Take 5e D&D. It could be hacked to start all PC's at a level 3 baseline. Reasonably competent.

You stop all HP advancement. Capped at level 3. You would have to adjust monster HP and Damage to match the new scale. I'd personally also hack/Trim the spell list/advancement to match *insert preferred magic level here*. And leave the rest of the leveling advancements pretty much the same.

Boom, you have a lower-powered game where the PC's start competent, and get more heroic overtime; they can do more damage, and are a bit harder to hit, etc.. But the fixed HP would give the PC's a baseline vulnerability that wouldn't be there in the standard 5e D&D HP level bloat model.

What I am getting at is that By Fixing HP at a given point, the d20/D&D system can be adjusted to better fit different genre's than it would if you just left the standard HP level bloat in.

I've played with similar changes. I always thought from a world building standpoint that 3rd level makes a good upper baseline for normal humans. Level 4 seems a natural breaking point, for a number of reasons, including silly things like the 4 level title for fighters (hero). And while they're not quite as buff as in Chainmail heroes are probably past the point of any realistic human potential. Also note the -10 death threshold in AD&D (which is more a common house rule than a RAW, because there are far more limitations on it than most people remember), which effectively gives characters an extra 10 hp. And 10 hp ~= 3d6, so you could argue 1st level characters should be 4th level characters. There's even a quote from Gygax about starting characters at 3rd level.

And older versions of D&D already have a natural capping point, at name level. While hit points don't stop adding up, they flatten out to +X/4 (about) instead of +1dX+Con bonus. But it's not the +2/level to hp that prevents it from being a real cap. Though while saves and attack bonuses get better as well, the real problem is spells -- you don't just more of them past name level, you go from ice storm to time stop, wish, and gate; and even the spells already known escalate dramatically in power -- e.g. fireballs keep adding d6s after a fighter's hp level out and thus become deadlier and deadlier. First and foremost, any cap needs to include a cap on spells.

The problem with capping hit point advancement alone is the game would become even more deadly as you go up in level. Attack rolls improve, better magical weapons mean more damage, and both those means the 3d8 or whatever hp get blown through almost instantly. You're reversing the dynamic where characters start out fragile at low levels, and become tough. Instead, characters would start out with some toughness, but become increasingly fragile. It would really discourage combat of any kind.

Quote from: Jaeger on March 02, 2021, 09:37:41 PM
You don't have to start out highly competent. Reasonably so is fine. And "Leveling" is just an advancement reward mechanism.

Take 5e D&D. It could be hacked to start all PC's at a level 3 baseline. Reasonably competent.

You stop all HP advancement. Capped at level 3. You would have to adjust monster HP and Damage to match the new scale. I'd personally also hack/Trim the spell list/advancement to match *insert preferred magic level here*. And leave the rest of the leveling advancements pretty much the same.

Boom, you have a lower-powered game where the PC's start competent, and get more heroic overtime; they can do more damage, and are a bit harder to hit, etc.. But the fixed HP would give the PC's a baseline vulnerability that wouldn't be there in the standard 5e D&D HP level bloat model.

What I am getting at is that By Fixing HP at a given point, the d20/D&D system can be adjusted to better fit different genre's than it would if you just left the standard HP level bloat in.

My system has about the same rough start point as level 3 in 5e (though that point was more accurately derived from level 1 in 4E), but there's a midway point between full HD+Con at every level and "hit points are capped at level 3." The answer, unsurprisingly to me anyway (because 4E had a lot of good ideas that got thrown under the bus as part of reassuring people that 5e would pretend 4E never existed) was a fixed hit point gain that ignored Con modifiers that ranged from 4-6 depending on class.

So in mine most characters start at level 1 with 25 hit points (a standard level 1 monster deals about 10 damage, mooks deal 2-5-ish) and gain 5 for each additional level, so at level 6 you have 50, at level 11 you have 75 and at level 15 (max level) you have 95 (defender-types expected to soak a lot of hits get 24+6/level; 30 at level 1, 60 at level 6, 90 at level 11, 114 at level 15).

Damage also scales linearly while attack/defenses are pretty well fixed (+1 at 6th and 11th) so overall you can deal with about five times the number of same opponents at level 15 as you could at level one (my estimate is 5x and not 4x because that +2 does make a difference when fighting lower level foes); a notable improvement, but not enough to make one invincible when you find yourself alone against a dozen orc veterans at once (whereas two orc veterans would be dangerous alone at level 1).

Quote from: Jaeger on March 02, 2021, 09:37:41 PM

I Don't think the structure has to be so different that one would have to switch to something like Gurps.

You don't have to start out highly competent. Reasonably so is fine. And "Leveling" is just an advancement reward mechanism.

Take 5e D&D. It could be hacked to start all PC's at a level 3 baseline. Reasonably competent.

You stop all HP advancement. Capped at level 3. You would have to adjust monster HP and Damage to match the new scale. I'd personally also hack/Trim the spell list/advancement to match *insert preferred magic level here*. And leave the rest of the leveling advancements pretty much the same.

Boom, you have a lower-powered game where the PC's start competent, and get more heroic overtime; they can do more damage, and are a bit harder to hit, etc.. But the fixed HP would give the PC's a baseline vulnerability that wouldn't be there in the standard 5e D&D HP level bloat model.

What I am getting at is that By Fixing HP at a given point, the d20/D&D system can be adjusted to better fit different genre's than it would if you just left the standard HP level bloat in.

I have similar motivations as Chris, but somewhat different goals.  It's been interesting reading about his approach here while I go in a different direction based on the same thinking.

I started with the ideas that:

- The BEMCI/RC structure has everything you need, but some of it is tacked on instead of integrated into the system.
- The 5E approach to limiting most of the mechanics instead of 4E scaling is correct in thinking but flawed in implementation. 
- That the 4E scaling of hit points is the right idea, but out of control, and then 5E didn't mute it enough.
- That in the process of doing the previous two points, WotC also went too far with the mechanical limits and not far enough in others, just a tad too much "sameness" from 4E in the name of universal mechanics.
- If the "Sweet Spot" is in particular middle levels, why not stretch out the effects that make the "Sweet Spot" into most of them?

There's a bunch of other things in my design unrelated to that which are ideas I wanted to try in a D&D-like game, but the core is built on those assumptions.  From that, I reworked the hit points, attack bonuses, defenses, etc. to work like a cleaned-up, stretched-out early, compressed later, BEMCI/RC.  I backed away from the 5E proficiency bonus, because while contributing mightily to the simplicity of the game, it does wonky things to the math on non-combat checks.  Then the stretching out allows fighters to get up to +8 class attack over 24 levels while wizards get +4 over the same time.  Everyone else is at +6.  So not nearly as extreme as BEMCI/RC but back towards that from the standard 5E approach.  Meanwhile, hit points are set at a base of d6s, happening every other level, for a cap of 12d6 at level 23.  (Fighters also get a total of +24 points over those levels, other classes get a lesser amount, Wizards get the base.)  Then there is a very simple Life point mechanic that tacks on another 5 or so points at the start and eventually grows to 10-12 points.  Damage has, of course, been muted as well, though fighters have some options to really pour it on (as do a few others to a lesser extent).   Ability scores do not much change this (no massive Con bonuses for anyone).  It works out to a max approaching 80 for the very toughest warriors, less for others, but spread out over the whole level progression.  Ability scores are capped normally at +4, but in reality +3 is the normal max the vast majority of the time.  Same limits on magic items.  Typical armor is slightly less powerful, but other other options put the numbers back into BEMCI/RC territory. 

This is all giving me some of the many benefits of the "Name level" cap while stretching out the growth over a longer set of levels.  A 9th level character is roughly equivalent to a 7th or 8th level BEMCI/RC character, but hits a little harder and is a little more vulnerable.  It did require me to rework everything in the game to match, which makes it only semi-compatible to BEMCI/RC and similar systems.  It still is "Zero to Hero" but the Hero part is muted like everything else in the system.   

Something I didn't exactly plan much but got anyway is that it would be trivial to modify my base system into something more like some of the OSR approaches.  A GM could take the base game, make a few choices about allowed class/race/culture/path options, combine every other level into a 12-level game, and then provide those simplified packages as the "classes" for the campaign.  You couldn't exactly produce every option, but you could get darn close.  The result of that wouldn't be much different than what you've suggested.

Well I don't like CR because its coarse and rough and irritating, and gets everywhere.

For those that have run & played editions earlier than 3.X were encounters in those editions designed to merely remove PC resources as the adventure went along?

Part of what I don't like about CR is that I'm supposed to have smaller encounters throughout the adventure so the PCs don't have access to their full resources in the "boss fight".

I don't really plan campaigns that way and I think that has been a big part of throwing CR out of the window.

While I played using the Rules Cyclopedia & AD&D 2E I don't recall that design philosophy being on display.

Quote from: Sunsword on March 16, 2021, 01:13:01 AM
For those that have run & played editions earlier than 3.X were encounters in those editions designed to merely remove PC resources as the adventure went along?

Part of what I don't like about CR is that I'm supposed to have smaller encounters throughout the adventure so the PCs don't have access to their full resources in the "boss fight".

I don't really plan campaigns that way and I think that has been a big part of throwing CR out of the window.

While I played using the Rules Cyclopedia & AD&D 2E I don't recall that design philosophy being on display.

I think it existed. The idea that you pushed into the dungeon until you ran out of "resources", and then retreated to rest up.

3.0 and later editions seemed to want to codify these ideas until they were a simple formula. X adventures per Y day, boss at the end. And the problem with such design is that it starts assuming X adventures per Y day and a boss at the end.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 16, 2021, 04:12:44 AM

Quote from: Sunsword on March 16, 2021, 01:13:01 AM
For those that have run & played editions earlier than 3.X were encounters in those editions designed to merely remove PC resources as the adventure went along?

Part of what I don't like about CR is that I'm supposed to have smaller encounters throughout the adventure so the PCs don't have access to their full resources in the "boss fight".

I don't really plan campaigns that way and I think that has been a big part of throwing CR out of the window.

While I played using the Rules Cyclopedia & AD&D 2E I don't recall that design philosophy being on display.

I think it existed. The idea that you pushed into the dungeon until you ran out of "resources", and then retreated to rest up.

3.0 and later editions seemed to want to codify these ideas until they were a simple formula. X adventures per Y day, boss at the end. And the problem with such design is that it starts assuming X adventures per Y day and a boss at the end.

5e even implicitly includes boss monsters in the form of "legendary" monsters (legendary to who?). They seemingly don't fit into how CR was supposedly designed to work by adding legendary actions and abilities on top of a regular monster (which is exactly how Pathfinder mythic worked), but I'm not a master of the system.