Can anyone explain the worldbuilding perspective on this? [Archive]

reddir

2020-07-30, 06:59 AM

The rules for awarding XP on page 37 of the DMG make it quite clear that it's the CR of the individual creatures, not the EL of the encounter, that matters. A 9th level character wouldn't receive any XP from fighting normal human zombies regardless of how many he fought.

The section goes on to say that the xp reward should be adjusted based on the actual challenge level. Either up or down.

-------------

So, either of these alone make sense to me and I can figure a few ways to work worldbuilding and setting lore for that way of awarding xp.

But together... I can't make them fit together...

Does anyone have clarity on this? Why on the one side is xp based on the idividual monsters and not the encounter challenge, and on the other side is xp based on the challenge and not just the base CR.

-------------

P.S I have no idea what tags to use for this, suggestions welcome.

Saintheart

2020-07-30, 07:56 AM

Because EL is a straight line calculation of the level of the encounter, but CR is a very rough, questionably mathematical estimate of which individual monster constitutes a "moderate" challenge to a party of four.

EL lets you notionally pick out the percentage of encounters that should be at, lower then, equal, higher, or grossly higher than the party's level. It's designed to vary the difficulty of encounters across the adventure. The DMG p. 49 provides the percentage of encounters that should be at, above, etc., EL.

To understand how XP, CR, and EL lock together, the thing to remember is that the DMG table on page 38 specifically assumes the (presumably classic four man) party is facing a single monster. That's what CR is premised upon. CR 1 assumes a standard party of 1st level meatshield + rogue + healbot + Batman will face a moderate challenge in taking down a single CR 1 creature. And so the XP award is 300 XP. The idea being that if the party faces a certain number of those CR 1s, they'll hit fourth level after a predictable number of encounters such that the players won't all give up the game out of sheer frustration at the lack of advancement.

It's very important to note here that CR has never been more than a very rough estimate of moderate difficulty premised on the players being the lowest common denominator: newbies, game store casuals, game club teens, and so on. The designers themselves admit there isn't a lot of math to it and there's a lot of guesswork in it. And, beyond the very weakest creatures (CR 0.5, 0.25, 0.33) there's no simple additive or multiplicative method to calculate CR when you put two or more creatures together.

That's where the EL is meant to come in. The table on DMG p. 49 is basically meant to tell you how many creatures of a given EL -- not CR -- can go into a fight together and neither be too easy for the party to beat nor a curbstomp by the DM.

But EL doesn't have any relationship with XP. Just because the table on DMG p.49 tells you you can put 12 EL 12 creatures and notionally have a EL 19 encounter doesn't mean you're necessarily able to get any meaningful XP out of it. EL has two purposes, neither of which are related to XP: it tells you how many ELs of lower levels equate to a higher EL, and tells you what proportion of encounters should be at, above, or below the party's EL. CR only tells you what the designers thought what level a classic party of four should be to face a single creature and for it to constitute a moderate threat. It's also the only metric they can really use to award XP.

The DMG basically dictates 10% of encounters should be below the party's EL. That doesn't mean the party gets meaningful XP out of it, it just means you've achieved variety in the difficulty levels. Make sense?

...no, you're right, it doesn't make sense, and one perhaps could be forgiven for wondering why they just didn't tie XP to the EL and increase or decrease it proportionally based on the percentage of encounters meant to be at that level. But that's 3.5 for you, and there's literally no better way to do it given the optionality of the system.

Asmotherion

2020-07-30, 08:00 AM

Quertus

2020-07-30, 11:36 AM

reddir

2020-07-30, 11:42 AM

...

...no, you're right, it doesn't make sense, and one perhaps could be forgiven for wondering why they just didn't tie XP to the EL ...

So, this pretty much sums up my question on a personal level.

But I am still trying to come up with a metaphysical construct (in-setting) that fits the concept of xp, CR, challenge....how all these can be tied together.

The sticking point for me seems to be xp based on CR can actually increase based on how challenging the encounter turns out to be.

reddir

2020-07-30, 11:45 AM

Let's admit a couple universal truths:

A) The CR system is broken. As in badly designed.

B) The majority of 3.5 players use some homebrew or otherwise variant system for awarding xp.

I personally calculate based on ECL and add or substact something based on SLAs and other Abilities that affect the encounter.

I get what you are saying here. I am too new to do this for each encounter and am trying to at least get a working sense of what was intended (narratively) before I start making smaller (hopefully) tweaks.

reddir

2020-07-30, 11:54 AM

"worldbuilding and setting lore"? Most people just accept XP as a Gamist construct. so I'll approach it from that PoV.

So, "a zombie" represents a certain amount of threat. Except… if the GM traps you in a 10' room with the zombie, you cannot take as much advantage of its weaknesses, and it's more challenging.

To use MtG parlance, if you were fighting a group that contained a Zombie Lord who have all zombies +1/+1 and Haste, that would increase the challenge of the *zombies*, but not of any non-zombies you were fighting (or of the zombie Lord himself). So it just makes sense, when looked at from that PoV, to measure challenge individually, and adjust individually for how the setup / scenario affects the challenge of each individual component.

All this still seems to work best with EL rather than CR based xp...

The Zombie Lord presumably has highter CR and will raise the EL level, accounting for the capability to buff the zombies.

------

The only argument I've seen for going by individual CR is that it rules out 100 low CR monsters being considered 1 very high CR monster for xp calculation, though the Mob template clears the way on this.

------

I have no problem applying whatever gamist rules that have been determined to work and been provided to us, maybe with some tweaks for personal taste.

What I do need is some ... unified concept of how the setting-world works, including all the "metagame" aspects. It makes it easier for me to get a background sense of the setting universe.

Saintheart

2020-07-30, 12:33 PM

I have no problem applying whatever gamist rules that have been determined to work and been provided to us, maybe with some tweaks for personal taste.

What I do need is some ... unified concept of how the setting-world works, including all the "metagame" aspects. It makes it easier for me to get a background sense of the setting universe.

Unfortunately I'd say get used to disappointment on that one. 3.5 was not built to interlock the gamist elements with the 'fluff', as it were. About as far as I'd go is to say that if the 15th level party is attacked by 40 kobolds, it'll wipe the floor with them without having to bust out any new moves or switch to innovation in desperation (which arguably is where experience resides), but they'll still get a metric ton of gold and equipment out of it since they've massacred an entire kobold tribe.

reddir

2020-07-30, 01:22 PM

Unfortunately I'd say get used to disappointment on that one. 3.5 was not built to interlock the gamist elements with the 'fluff', as it were.

A lot of it actually can be made to work! At least to the degree that I have looked at it, admitedly not always very deep, and if one is willing to look at the fluff as a 'reporter's view' rather than hard absolute truth.

About as far as I'd go is to say that if the 15th level party is attacked by 40 kobolds, it'll wipe the floor with them without having to bust out any new moves or switch to innovation in desperation (which arguably is where experience resides), but they'll still get a metric ton of gold and equipment out of it since they've massacred an entire kobold tribe.

That seems to fit the rules as given.

Edea

2020-07-30, 02:08 PM

Wasn't XP originally tied to how much treasure you found? Like, in ye olde tymes.

That probably made it a lot easier to calculate, but then as editions came and gone that idea got discarded, without anything else around to really back things up to that degree of exactitude.

Also, PEMN and this isn't broadly applicable, but every 3.5 game I've ever been in, the DM just says 'you get this much XP because that's what I feel like giving you' at the very end of each session. Didn't even matter what we fought, CR was completely discarded. I remember at one point we basically romanced our way out an encounter with a lone kobold who was going to sound the alarm for his dragon boss; technically the kobold was fractional CR, at best, but the DM liked the roleplay so much we all went straight from 11th to 12th level in a single session, just like that.

I've also had a DM (who apologized to us profusely afterwards while we laughed it off and played Split the Room with him) who accidentally thought the CR number meant 'appropriate for -ONE- PC of that level to take on', not 'appropriate for a -PARTY OF FOUR- PCs of that level to take on'. A whole dungeon was designed with that in mind, and what was supposed to be a routine dungeon crawl became the frickin' gauntlet.

Seto

2020-07-30, 02:36 PM

reddir

2020-07-30, 03:36 PM

Wasn't XP originally tied to how much treasure you found? Like, in ye olde tymes.

Yup, and there were some variations on that also. And there was at least one system for getting xp from 'class abilities', such as a Thief getting xp for stealing (and obviously the other party members are the most available targets), the Wizard getting xp for casting spells, and so on. At least the ones I read about all seem pretty flavorful and give good meaning to what xp actually is.

Also, PEMN and this isn't broadly applicable, but every 3.5 game I've ever been in, the DM just says 'you get this much XP because that's what I feel like giving you' at the very end of each session. Didn't even matter what we fought, CR was completely discarded.

1) What does "PEMN" mean? I haven't seen it before and my quick internet search didn't find anything relevent (guessing it is not Private Equity Marketing News).

2) Yeah, most things just get a lot simpler when it is GM Fiat. And the GM can give whatever metaphysical reason for what xp is and how it is given out.

I've also had a DM (who apologized to us profusely afterwards while we laughed it off and played Split the Room with him) who accidentally thought the CR number meant 'appropriate for -ONE- PC of that level to take on', not 'appropriate for a -PARTY OF FOUR- PCs of that level to take on'. A whole dungeon was designed with that in mind, and what was supposed to be a routine dungeon crawl became the frickin' gauntlet.

This kind of full-up death game scenario is very interesting to me...but the expected high death rate makes me think people will just lose any sense of investment...unless they had maybe 5 characters each which they could just slot in to replace a dead character and ran it like a tactical wargame rather than roleplay.

reddir

2020-07-30, 03:45 PM

I don't really see the contradiction. Basically, I take the quotes to mean that XP depends on the level of challenge, as estimated by the GM. That level of challenge is measured by the EL, with the specific provision that a pile of low-CR monsters doesn't provide challenge to a higher-level party. They're admitting that the formula for calculating CR --> EL --> actual challenge --> XP doesn't work in the case of multiple low-CR monsters.
Ultimately, the GM is responsible for adjudicating the actual difficulty of the encounter. CR and EL are given to the GM as an indicator and a guideline, a built-in formula for estimating the challenge level, but the GM is encouraged to exercise discretion and adjust it up or down if other circumstances (environment etc.) warrant it.

So the basics of what you said all seem good to me.

However... why not just say: CR goes into calculating EL, EL determines treasure and also xp after adjusting for encounter challenge.

In the RAW it specifically calls out that EL makes zero impact on xp gain - that even in a enemy group encounter you are supposed to figure the xp gain for each monster seperately based on CR.

Another possible explanation is that they just didn't think it through? That the two section were written seperately and that they should have put them together? But they could have done that after much player feedback from 3.0 when they transitioned to 3.5.

Again, CR or EL I could flavor up and move on. But together, especially when encounter challenge can increase the xp gain...I just can't come up with a metaphysical explanation for this.

Edea

2020-07-30, 03:49 PM

1) What does "PEMN" mean? I haven't seen it before and my quick internet search didn't find any thing relevent (guessing it is not Private Equity Marketing News).

Oops, sorry. It stands for "personal experience means nothing". It gets used to shoot down balance/mechanical arguments that are primarily based on the arguing party's personal experiences (for example, a given individual might've seen a Fighter in a 3.5 game completely whoop a Cleric, a Druid and that druid's animal companion in a duel simultaneously, and thus come to the conclusion that Fighters are overpowered; that person needs to get hit with PEMN and shown the actual math/what the average result would've been).

reddir

2020-07-30, 03:52 PM

Oops, sorry. It stands for "personal experience means nothing". It gets used to shoot down balance/mechanical arguments that are primarily based on the arguing party's personal experiences (for example, a given individual might've seen a Fighter in a 3.5 game completely whoop a Cleric, a Druid and that druid's animal companion in a duel simultaneously, and thus come to the conclusion that Fighters are overpowered; that person needs to get hit with PEMN and shown the actual math/what the average result would've been).

Ah, nice! Seems a very useful acronym, and not just for gaming stuff but any discussion where statistics matter but can sometimes be overridden by unique non-representative circumstances.

Saintheart

2020-07-31, 12:21 AM

On the question of CR and EL, I recommend reading the Angry GM's take on the subjects of Challenge, Difficulty, and Monster Building (https://theangrygm.com/attack-of-the-genericons/). When it comes to CR, he provides this rough summary of how it came about:

The first CR system in D&D came in D&D 3rd Edition (and that’s the system Pathfinder adopted and polished). And ultimately, despite how mathematical everything SEEMED, the truth is, there was almost no math behind it. The designers have actually told the Story of the Genericons several times since then. So I can safely repeat it here.

Basically, after the game designers finished designing all of the classes and numbers for the game based on the elegant d20 system and ability modifiers ranging from -5 to +5 and weapons that mostly did single dice of damage and spells that did basically scaling damage based on multiples of levels and single dice and all that other ****, they invented hordes of monsters called Genericons.

A Genericon was basically an educated guess at stats. Attack bonuses, damage bonuses, Armor Class, saving throws, and so on and so forth. The designers built all sorts of parties of PCs and all sorts of Genericons and had them fight over and over and over until they saw what stats were giving them the results they wanted against what levels of monsters.

Once they had the stats for Difficulty 1 and Difficulty 2 and Difficulty 7, they reverse engineered a system for monster building based on Hit Dice progressions and monster types and subtypes. All the s$&% you know.

Its also important to note that the monsters in the Monster Manual were, for the most part, playtested and had their CRs tweaked. And that’s why the stats in the Monster Manual don’t quite always line up with the monster building system.

Pathfinder absorbed this system with a few system specific tweaks. And again, most of these tweaks came from playtesting rather than rigorous mathematical systems. And again, Pathfinder reverse engineered a system for monster building that would give results close to what their playtests showed were the right numbers.

And, the thing is, there were known bugs in the system. Both the D&D system and the Pathfinder system. For one thing, the designers of D&D outright admitted that fey creatures always came out weak. They had no staying power. I think it was James Wyatt who admitted to pumping drow Constitution scores in his own games just to give the bastards some staying power. Things like that.

Quertus

2020-07-31, 05:42 AM

So the basics of what you said all seem good to me.

However... why not just say: CR goes into calculating EL, EL determines treasure and also xp after adjusting for encounter challenge.

In the RAW it specifically calls out that EL makes zero impact on xp gain - that even in a enemy group encounter you are supposed to figure the xp gain for each monster seperately based on CR.

Another possible explanation is that they just didn't think it through? That the two section were written seperately and that they should have put them together? But they could have done that after much player feedback from 3.0 when they transitioned to 3.5.

Again, CR or EL I could flavor up and move on. But together, especially when encounter challenge can increase the xp gain...I just can't come up with a metaphysical explanation for this.

… well, maybe your bringing up "treasure" will make this easier.

Suppose kobolds use the "rusty but knife" treasure/equipment table/template. Each kobold is equipped with 1 set of rags and one rusty butter knife.

If you got 1,000 kobolds together, you wouldn't expect 999 unarmed, naked kobolds led by an armored kobold knight wielding Excalibur.

Or imagine a sunny day by the lake. There, you find a dozen kobolds, two wraiths, and that **** crab. This is favorable conditions for the crab, unavoidable conditions for the wraiths, and a wash for the kobolds. So the crab is worth more XP than usual, the wraiths are worth less XP than usual, and the kobolds are worth their usual XP. Whereas, in an underground room with an active ritual / event ("day of the dragon" or whatever) that gives all kobolds a bonus, it's normal XP for the wraiths, less XP for the crab, and more XP for the kobolds. In an Unhallowed area, the wraiths are worth more XP - this shouldn't affect your XP from the kobolds or the crab.

What setting lore do you need for "if the terrain/scenario is advantageous for a foe, the fight is inherently harder against that foe"?

Saintheart

2020-07-31, 05:51 AM

If you got 1,000 kobolds together, you wouldn't expect 999 unarmed, naked kobolds led by an armored kobold knight wielding Excalibur.

Whosoever of this overlarge nudist lizard colony draweth this Medium-size Martial Weapon from this Hardness 10 object, is rightwise granted the Leadership feat born of all Regional Prerequisite.

reddir

2020-07-31, 07:17 AM

… well, maybe your bringing up "treasure" will make this easier.

Suppose kobolds use the "rusty but knife" treasure/equipment table/template. Each kobold is equipped with 1 set of rags and one rusty butter knife.

If you got 1,000 kobolds together, you wouldn't expect 999 unarmed, naked kobolds led by an armored kobold knight wielding Excalibur.

Or imagine a sunny day by the lake. There, you find a dozen kobolds, two wraiths, and that **** crab. This is favorable conditions for the crab, unavoidable conditions for the wraiths, and a wash for the kobolds. So the crab is worth more XP than usual, the wraiths are worth less XP than usual, and the kobolds are worth their usual XP. Whereas, in an underground room with an active ritual / event ("day of the dragon" or whatever) that gives all kobolds a bonus, it's normal XP for the wraiths, less XP for the crab, and more XP for the kobolds. In an Unhallowed area, the wraiths are worth more XP - this shouldn't affect your XP from the kobolds or the crab.

What setting lore do you need for "if the terrain/scenario is advantageous for a foe, the fight is inherently harder against that foe"?

Okay. You are presenting it from the perspective of the monsters, as individual participants rather than a single grouped challenge that the players are dealing with.

From this angle it all makes perfect sense.

And as was said earlier, xp is now ‘challenge faced and overcome’ - rather than gathering some mystical force. This messes up my thoughts on things with xp costs but I can work through that more easily than the other issue.

Thanks 👍😃🎉

reddir

2020-07-31, 07:25 AM

Asmotherion

2020-08-01, 08:55 AM

Well, for a slightly optimised high level party, any number of standard kobolts is an unfair encounter... for the kobolts.

Will also be a very boring encounter, but:

-Kobolts probably won't hit except for a natural 20. Statistically speaking, only 1 out of 20 kobolts hit. At best, standard Kobolds have a +3 to attack with their slings. Any slightly optimised Character by level 10 will probably have at least 30 AC.
-Any AoE will take care of multiple Kobolts at a time. For example, a Cloudkill together with a control spell like Wall of Stone/Force that forces creatures to stay inside the AoE.

If you go by ECL and advance Kobolts by Class or through Templates, that means less Kobolts, thus a standard encounter.

D+1

2020-08-01, 09:16 AM

Let's admit a couple universal truths:Nope. I can't do that for you.

A) The CR system is broken. As in badly designed.It's not broken so much as just often being inaccurate, occasionally wildly so. As noted CR values are not based on math or established formulas. They are guesswork. Educated guesswork but still guesswork. Sometimes they guess wrong. That doesn't make the idea of attempting to provide some baseline value for a monster a broken system. It was never supposed to be treated as a system that provides mathematical certainty of encounter results in all conceivable circumstances. It's just a place to START, a TOOL to use in at least taking a reasonable stab at consistent results.

After all, the CR values aren't the END result of the system, just the start. The DM is expected to still adjust the values that were given according to the CR by the amount that THE DM believes represents the ACTUAL difficulty of the encounter. You start with the educated guess of CR values, adjust them according to what you think was the REAL difficulty, and end up with a HIGHLY subjective amount of xp as a result.

B) The majority of 3.5 players use some homebrew or otherwise variant system for awarding xp.The MAJORITY do? Over half of all players don't use the 3.5 xp system? If you have actual evidence of this I'd be interested to see it.

Asmotherion

2020-08-01, 04:06 PM

Nope. I can't do that for you.

It's not broken so much as just often being inaccurate, occasionally wildly so. As noted CR values are not based on math or established formulas. They are guesswork. Educated guesswork but still guesswork. Sometimes they guess wrong. That doesn't make the idea of attempting to provide some baseline value for a monster a broken system. It was never supposed to be treated as a system that provides mathematical certainty of encounter results in all conceivable circumstances. It's just a place to START, a TOOL to use in at least taking a reasonable stab at consistent results.

After all, the CR values aren't the END result of the system, just the start. The DM is expected to still adjust the values that were given according to the CR by the amount that THE DM believes represents the ACTUAL difficulty of the encounter. You start with the educated guess of CR values, adjust them according to what you think was the REAL difficulty, and end up with a HIGHLY subjective amount of xp as a result.

The MAJORITY do? Over half of all players don't use the 3.5 xp system? If you have actual evidence of this I'd be interested to see it.

A) How do you call something that doesn't work as intended? I usually call it broken, but that's just me I guess. :smallamused:

B) Dm's I've played with, both IRL and over the Interned either used a diferent formula, or just gave XP based on the way the fight went.

Also, from posts on this very forum, the general notion I got is "we don't use the CR/XP official system and instead use X".

Now, I'm sorry there was never an official poll made on the matter (that I'm aware of at the very least), and this is just "educated guesswork" on my part, but if you're willing to conduct such a poll, I'd be more than willing to participate, and have a very strong "hunch" my majority claim will prove true to it.

reddir

2020-08-02, 09:09 AM

So, I have been thinking on this further...

After going around in circles, I realized I might be lacking relevant info, so I tried comparing outcomes to see if that added anything to my understanding of "why?".

--------------

Party: (earliest 'clean' list on the CR/XP table)
4 x ECL 8

Encounters: (assuming no unusual circumstances to alter the difficulty; using the 2*monsters = [CR + 2] EL given on DMG 48-49.)
EL 1 = CR 1 * 1
EL 8 = CR 1 * [8+4? = 12]
EL 15 = CR 1 * 128

Calculating XP/Treasure as: (table on DMG 38 for xp, table on DMG 51 for avg treasure value)
XP from CR, Treasure from EL - as given in RAW
XP and Treasure from CR - as if individuals faced in sequence rather than at once
XP and Treasure from EL - as if a single enemy of CR [EL]

----

CR-/EL-based
from EL 1: 200 xp, 300 gp
from EL 8: [200*12 = 2,400] xp, 3,400 gp
from EL 15: [200*128 = 25,600] xp, 28,000 gp

CR-based
from EL1: 200 xp, 300 gp
from EL 8: [200*12 = 2,400] xp, [300*12 = 3,600] gp
from EL 15: [200*128 = 25,600] xp, [300*128 = 38,400] gp

EL-based
from EL 1: 200 xp, 300 gp
from EL 8: 2,400 xp, 3,400 gp
from EL 15: 28,800 xp, 28,000 gp

----

So it seems the XP from CR and Treasure from EL give reduced amounts of both compared to the other ways of calculating things.

--------------

I don't know what to make of all this... It still seems needlessly complex to split what gets calculated how, and no one has given me any gamist (unless I missed something?) or worldbuilding reason to do it this way.

From a challenge and worldbuilding perspective I might expect the results to be the opposite - monsters working together should make them harder and give more experience than facing them individually over time, and squads or tribes of monsters could be expected to have more built up wealth than a collection of individuals (though this is mitigated by fewer but better items being preferred over more but worse items, even if of lower total cost).

The best I can figure is that XP from CR is maybe a way to get the GM to look at things from a monster's perspective... but it is a stupid reason even on the face of it - if this is the reason just tell the GM to consider individual monsters' actions and motivations.

My own worldbuilding takeaway from all this is:
1) There is no actual reason to tie XP to CR. XP is based on challenge/difficulty faced which is what EL is supposed to be about. Can add a limiter of +/- 7 CR from ECL before requiring the GM to take a closer look at things (which is what we have now).
2) The writers had no intended reason to do it this way, nothing is lost by simplifying it. This is like a cheese-grater to my rules-verse sensibilities - PLEASE Prove Me Wrong!

Tiktakkat

2020-08-02, 10:48 AM

On the question of CR and EL, I recommend reading the Angry GM's take on the subjects of Challenge, Difficulty, and Monster Building (https://theangrygm.com/attack-of-the-genericons/). When it comes to CR, he provides this rough summary of how it came about:

The first CR system in D&D came in D&D 3rd Edition . . .

That is not correct.
The first CR system in D&D came in the the AD&D DMG, which, due to various issues, was released 2 years after the MM and 1 year after the PHB.

It was not called a "CR system", but functionally, it was.

It was a very loose system, with monster xp being based on a base value for hit dice, a bonus for actual hit points (which back in the day were variable, and not an automatic average), and bonuses for exceptional abilities, which were very loosely defined.
The DMG had an appendix that provided specific values for the monsters previously published in the MM, and new monster books provided the xp as an entry for each monster, along with its level.
The DMG had another appendix for "Random Monster Encounters" that laid out the system.
The "level" was related to the "dungeon level" the monster might appear on, and was a function of the xp value of the monster.
The monster entries for each level included both solo monsters and groups of monsters - a single ear seeker would appear on the first level of the dungeon, but you would meet 6-15 goblins.
Further text explained that monsters found on deeper levels would appear in multiples of the base numbers except for adventurers, who would just be higher level, and 9th and 10th level monsters, who would get attendants. Similarly, higher level monsters appearing on lower levels of the dungeon would appear in lesser numbers.
There is also a section regarding adjusting xp awards based on the difficulty of the encounter, rating it according to the adjusted HD of the monsters compared to the total levels of the party.

The system was far from the presumed mathematical precision of 3E onward, and the presentation of the system was less-than-well-organized, but it was a "CR system" just as much as in 3E. Indeed, I might suggest that the lack of any presumed mathematical precision in the system made it superior to what they tried to construct when they revised the system. Why? Because the later systems assumed that probability dictated an outcome rather than merely suggesting the most common one. As a result, the system falls apart once the dice start falling, and random chance starts wrecking all those best laid plans of designers and DMs. (The scattered presentation is of course another issue, though it deserves some leeway for being among the first presentations of such rules.)

D+1

2020-08-02, 12:03 PM

A) How do you call something that doesn't work as intended? I usually call it broken, but that's just me I guess. :smallamused: I think it works fine and DOES work as intended. Players have come to have very different ideas about what was intended with 3E after it was released. XP and encounter building would be one. It's FAR better and more useful than XP systems were in 1E/2E which used impossible to analyze logarithmic progressions from hundreds up to millions of xp, and at least provided A tool to help build encounters unlike 1E/2E which had the excellent method of, "We got nothing. You'll just have to figure that out yourself."

Another of my favorite examples of this phenomenon in 3E is demographics. The DMG provided a nice set of random tables and CLEARLY said, "If you have no time to make up details about a city before the game but need information NOW, use these random bits." Players decided those tables were LAWS GRAVEN IN STONE and all cities were supposed to conform to those rules and ENTIRE GAME SETTINGS were supposed to be built from scratch using those random tables... tables that were just meant to be used in a pinch - and SAID so.

B) Dm's I've played with, both IRL and over the Interned either used a different formula, or just gave XP based on the way the fight went.I'm sure that's true. But anecdotal evidence doesn't make it the majority approach. If it IS the majority approach then that would be a surprise to ME and might even change what I think about certain things. I'd just prefer to see more on this particular assertion than just, "Nobody plays x because I never see it."

reddir

2020-08-02, 12:13 PM

I appreciate the discussion you all are having about the value or even validity of the CR system but that is not what this thread is about.

I respectfully ask that you shift the discussion to a new thread. As a bonus, everyone could more easily find the discussion and share their own thoughts.

For this thread I was hoping, with the explicit assumption that the RAW is well crafted based on sensible D&D ideas, to come to some sense of what this says about the implied setting.

I know that the RAW is almost never perfect and sometimes even seems ridiculous but I want to start with figuring out what it leads to and only after that tweak or rewrite things to suit my needs.

Quertus

2020-08-02, 01:29 PM

<Sloth's voice>Thinking is hard. Math is hard.

Sigh. Fine. Let's talk about how XP and challenge actually *should* work.

Let's start with an oversimplification.

Suppose a high-level party is fighting goblins. There exists some number of goblins, G, that the party can kill each round. To keep the math easy, if the party goes first, they will kill G goblins without taking any damage.

If they have to fight 2G goblins, then G goblins will die without getting to go, but the other G goblins will get 1 turn before they die. So, let's call the expected damage for 1 round of G goblins D. With 2G goblins, you expect them to deal D damage.

With 3G goblins, G die the first round, dealing 0 damage. Another G die the second round, having dealt D damage. The 3rd G goblins attack for 2 rounds, dealing 2D damage.

This pattern continues, so that, for example, 5G goblins deal (0+1+2+3+4)*D damage, or 10D damage. 10G goblins deal 45D damage. 15G goblins deal 105D damage.

If the goblins go about the same time as the party, they, on average, get an extra half a round to deal damage. So G goblins deal 0.5D damage, 2G goblins deal 2D damage, 3G goblins deal 4.5G damage, 5G goblins deal 12.5D damage, 10G goblins deal 50D damage, etc.

If the goblins get a surprise round and go first, they deal an extra 2 rounds of damage. So G goblins deal 2D damage, 2G goblins deal 5D damage, 3G goblins deal 9D damage, 5G goblins deal 20D damage, 10G goblins deal 65D damage.

Of course, this assumes that all goblins have the opportunity to damage their foes every round. If there's a limit to how many goblins can effectively combat the party, that limits how much damage can be dealt round to round, and make the total damage scale much more linearly. This is probably why "has ranged attacks" made a monster worth more XP in 2e.

Lastly, consider a SoD trap. If the odds of surviving 1 is 50/50, then the odds of surviving 2 is ¼, the odds of surviving 3 is ⅛, the odds of surviving 4 is 1/16, etc.

So, melee, ranged, and SoD all have different threat scaling, even when looked at through the simplest of lenses, and not taking into account resource expenditure, variable rates of defeating foes, party attrition, etc.

But, now that the basic math is out of the way… how would you like to relate those facts to your world-building? How - if at all - would you like the favorable circumstances of "an ambush" to affect XP? How - if at all - would you like "number of foes" to affect XP?

reddir

2020-08-02, 02:12 PM

...

So, melee, ranged, and SoD all have different threat scaling, even when looked at through the simplest of lenses, and not taking into account resource expenditure, variable rates of defeating foes, party attrition, etc.

But, note that the basic math is out of the way… how would you like to relate those facts to your world-building? How - if at all - would you like the favorable circumstances of "an ambush" to affect XP? How - if at all - would you like "number of foes" to affect XP?

Okay, I think I am getting it now...

So, keeping all the monsters separate in the calculations allows us to adjust difficulty/xp modifiers for each individual piece of an encounter - some might be right in the players’ face, some out of reasonable access, some that can’t really be fought, some striking from ambush, some from a disadvantaged position, some surprised, some disabled, etc.

THIS makes a whole lot of sense to me. It is a lot more detail than I really considered, and it really inspires me to think of how complex/interesting one can make a single encounter scene. It makes the detail seem very worthwhile.

And with the idea that the Treasure-by-EL is to allow higher-level treasure finds (and generalized encounter building), I think I might be set.

Thank you.

——————

As for your your questions to me... I think what I took from your answer points the way back to the RAW.

Does it seem to you that I am finally grok’ing things?