Challenge Ratings Are Fake

"Challenge Rating" is a number designed to represent how difficult an encounter with a creature or group of creatures would be for a group of adventurers of a given level. When designing encounters, a GM is now supposed to take into account the Challenge Rating of the creatures they include, and "balance" the encounter appropriately. This is a huge shift in Dungeons and Dragons - and one that I think is troubling. In older editions of the game, it was assumed that the GM would take into account the relative strengths of the creatures in an encounter and the relative strengths of the party and design encounters appropriately. There was no need for a mechanical system to "balance" encounters, because it was assumed that the GM would do so. 

This is not to say that encounters in older editions of Dungeons and Dragons were necessarily "balanced" - often they were not, and this was seen as a good thing. It was assumed that the GM would take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the party and design encounters accordingly. The CR system in 5th Edition seems to be designed to take the place of the GM's judgement in designing encounters. It is a system that is designed to assure that encounters are "balanced" and "fair".


I have a problem with this. I think that it is a mistake to try and mechanically balance encounters. I think that this is something that should be left to the GM. I have a great deal of respect for Mike Mearls, one of the lead designers of 5th Edition. I think that he is an intelligent, articulate, and insightful person (however, I think he has been accused of doing bad things. I have not looked into this nor do I know what he has been accused of, but if it is true, I am very disappointed). I think that he and his team did a great job in designing 5th Edition and bringing it to fruition. I also think that he is wrong about the Challenge Rating system. In a recent article, Mike Mearls wrote: 

"The goal of the CR system is to provide a baseline for measuring a creature’s threat level. If you want to throw a mixed group of monsters at the heroes, you can use the CRs of the monsters to measure the difficulty of the encounter. If you want to throw a lone creature at the heroes, you can use the CR to gauge the difficulty of the encounter. CR is a number that represents a creature’s threat level, not its raw power."

I think that this is a mistake. I think that by basing the Challenge Rating system on a creature's "threat level" rather than its "raw power" is a fundamental error. I think that this is an error that has led to a great deal of confusion and frustration on the part of both GMs and players. The problem is that there is no such thing as a creature's "threat level". There is no mechanical or objective way to measure a creature's "threat level". It is entirely subjective. It is entirely up to the GM. 

For example, let's say that the party is up against a group of kobolds. The kobolds have a CR of 1/8. The party is made up of four 6th-level characters. The GM could decide that the kobolds are a threat, and they should be a difficult encounter. The GM could decide that the kobolds are not a threat, and they should be a easy encounter. The GM could decide that the kobolds are a threat, but they should be a very easy encounter. It is entirely up to the GM. There is no right or wrong answer. There is no mechanical way to determine the "threat level" of the kobolds. 


I think that the Challenge Rating system should be based on a creature's "power level". A creature's "power level" is a measure of its capabilities, not its "threat level". A creature's "power level" is objective. It is quantifiable. It is measurable. 

  • A creature's "power level" is based on its stats, its abilities, and its equipment. 
  • A creature's "power level" is not based on the GM's opinion of its "threat level". 
  • A creature's "power level" is not based on the party's level. 
  • A creature's "power level" is not based on the creature's CR. 
  • A creature's "power level" is not based on the creature's role in the encounter. 
  • A creature's "power level" is not based on the creature's role in the campaign. 
  • A creature's "power level" is not based on the creature's race (which is racist).
  • A creature's "power level" is not based on the creature's class. 
  • A creature's "power level" is not based on the creature's alignment. 
  • A creature's "power level" is not based on the creature's size.

Now, a creature's "power level" might be a reasonable measurement of its "threat level", but that is not necessarily the case. A creature's "threat level" is entirely subjective, and depends on the situation and the creature's role in the encounter. A creature's "threat level" is what the GM thinks is a reasonable challenge for the party. A creature's "threat level" is completely different from its "power level". A creature's "power level" is not a measure of its "threat level". This is a really important distinction, and I'm surprised you missed it. For example, a CR 10 creature might be a reasonable threat in a party of four CR 3 characters. In a party of four CR 5 characters, that same creature might not be a reasonable threat, but might still be a reasonable challenge. A creature's "power level" is not based on the party's level. Now, I'm not trying to say that CR is completely useless. It is simply that CR is not a measure of "power level", and therefore is not a good tool to use when balancing encounters.


Thanks for reading! This is my first blog post


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Door Procedure

Image
 What do you do when your players decide to smash down a locked door? Here’s what I’d do: I’d ask my friend what sort of damage they’re dealing, and then I’d make up a number that seems appropriate. If my friend is swinging a two-handed greatsword and dealing 40 damage per hit, I’m thinking that they’re not going to need to hit the door more than seven or eight times to get the job done. If my friend is swinging the same sword but dealing only 20 damage per hit, I’m thinking that they’re going to need to hit the door fourteen or fifteen times. If my friend is just kicking the door—no weapons, no armor—I’m thinking that it’s going to take them a lot longer. If this is a one-time thing, and the door is just a simple plot device, I think that’s fine.  If this is a recurring thing, and the door is protecting the secret entrance to a villain’s lair—or something similarly important—I might want to take a second to make a note of how many hits it took to break the door, and then use ...
Read more

Procedures are the "AI Art" of TTRPGs

Image
 AI art, like procedures, is often criticized for lacking the creativity and imagination that comes from human artists. Both AI art and procedures can be seen as a systematic, step-by-step approach to creating something. While this approach can produce highly technical and precise results, it can also be limiting and fail to capture the unique qualities that make art and storytelling so special . Ultimately, it's important to strike a balance between structure and creativity in both AI art and procedures to truly capture the essence of what makes art and storytelling so engaging. Procedures can ruin storytelling by making it too formulaic and predictable. When stories are too focused on following a set of pre-determined steps, they can lose their uniqueness and become boring. Additionally, procedures can limit the creativity of the storyteller , preventing them from taking risks and exploring new ideas. A good story should be able to capture the imagination of the audience and tak...
Read more