D&D 5E Should DnDBeyond include an Encounter Simulator?

[LordEntrails]

No DDB should not include an encounter simulator.

Any such simulator would have to use a bunch of assumptions. Whatever those assumptions would be, they would unduly shape the game for tens of thousands or millions of players. Shaping the gameplay is not bad in and of itself, but shaping the gameplay based upon statistics and roll mechanics is.

Shaping the game in this way would lead to more min/max/optimization. More crunchiness, more fiddle rules, more emphasis on combat. Such would result in less role playing, less flexibility, fewer DM rulings, less variety in how the game is played. One aspect of RPGs that is critical to me and seems to almost be the prime directive in the community is that their no one right way to play.

 

[Stalker0]

Is it really that helpful to know, assuming said variables can truly be quantified accurately, that the likely combat outcome for the party will be 82.5% victory, 10% stalemate, 7% defeat, 0.5% TPK (or whatever)?

yes it’s very helpful. It gives an at a glance understanding of how strong the fight is. If I set up an encounter and it TPKs my group in sim 50% of the time…that immediately tells me that this encounter is really deadly, way more accurately than a CR number.

Now sure the diff between between 85% win and 80% doesn’t matter much. But if I see a 99% win vs a 60% win…yeah that means something.

 

[Clint_L]

No DDB should not include an encounter simulator.

Any such simulator would have to use a bunch of assumptions. Whatever those assumptions would be, they would unduly shape the game for tens of thousands or millions of players. Shaping the gameplay is not bad in and of itself, but shaping the gameplay based upon statistics and roll mechanics is.

Shaping the game in this way would lead to more min/max/optimization. More crunchiness, more fiddle rules, more emphasis on combat. Such would result in less role playing, less flexibility, fewer DM rulings, less variety in how the game is played. One aspect of RPGs that is critical to me and seems to almost be the prime directive in the community is that their no one right way to play.

Having a more accurate CR calculator to help DM's plan combat encounters is going to make everyone become a rabid optimizer?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a point by point statistical breakdown printed out for the DM or characters to analyze. Currently, when you plan an encounter using DDB it already gives you a CR rating. That's already a thing. I'm just suggesting that that tool could be a lot more accurate, given the data at hand. That's all.

There are quite a few threads discussing the weakness of the current CR system. The basic premise of these threads is that CR is too simplistic. However, none of them are looking at it from the perspective of having all the character data on DDB, which is increasingly the case.

 

[LordEntrails]

Having a more accurate CR calculator to help DM's plan combat encounters is going to make everyone become a rabid optimizer?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a point by point statistical breakdown printed out for the DM or characters to analyze. Currently, when you plan an encounter using DDB it already gives you a CR rating. That's already a thing. I'm just suggesting that that tool could be a lot more accurate, given the data at hand. That's all.

There are quite a few threads discussing the weakness of the current CR system. The basic premise of these threads is that CR is too simplistic. However, none of them are looking at it from the perspective of having all the character data on DDB, which is increasingly the case.

Please don't misquote me. At no point did I say anything close to "everyone" or do I imply anything like "rabid". Yes I understand it is fun to take someone's viewpoint and take it to an absurd extreme. But that's not a useful discussion.

Yes the tool (and CR ratings) could be more accurate. But imo doing so could be a BAD thing. And it would be a bad thing in many use cases.

Look, there are folks, and you might fit in this group, that want precision. To know that Encounter X against Party 1 will result in Y (% resource use, HP expenditure, % character death, etc).

I get it, but here's why I think it would be bad for the community (on a whole, not for every person in every group, but a sum that is more bad than good). Primarily, any such tool would have to make assumptions about the encounters. A big part of this is the tactics used by the players, but also includes things like optimization level of the characters and the equipment usable to them. (Yes, the second of these would be known to DDB, putting even more emphasis on the first.)

Now, how is this tool going to know the tactical ability of the players? How is it going to know if the players have chosen to play characters that are adverse to violence? Or enjoy solving combat in outrageous and dramatic (but tactically poor) actions? IT won't.

But the tool is going to strongly imply that if a group uses more resources or is less successful than "they should be", that the Players are doing something wrong. To me, implying a group is playing poorly because they are using too many resources, are not making tactical ideal choices, or otherwise not playing based upon someone else's assumptions, is a "Bad Thing".

Now, putting this more precise D&D Digital platform would mean that these assumptions would become the expectation. These assumptions would become "canon". Do you not see the harm such would do to the community?

 

[Clint_L]

Please don't misquote me. At no point did I say anything close to "everyone" or do I imply anything like "rabid". Yes I understand it is fun to take someone's viewpoint and take it to an absurd extreme. But that's not a useful discussion.

Yes the tool (and CR ratings) could be more accurate. But imo doing so could be a BAD thing. And it would be a bad thing in many use cases.

Look, there are folks, and you might fit in this group, that want precision. To know that Encounter X against Party 1 will result in Y (% resource use, HP expenditure, % character death, etc).

I get it, but here's why I think it would be bad for the community (on a whole, not for every person in every group, but a sum that is more bad than good). Primarily, any such tool would have to make assumptions about the encounters. A big part of this is the tactics used by the players, but also includes things like optimization level of the characters and the equipment usable to them. (Yes, the second of these would be known to DDB, putting even more emphasis on the first.)

Now, how is this tool going to know the tactical ability of the players? How is it going to know if the players have chosen to play characters that are adverse to violence? Or enjoy solving combat in outrageous and dramatic (but tactically poor) actions? IT won't.

But the tool is going to strongly imply that if a group uses more resources or is less successful than "they should be", that the Players are doing something wrong. To me, implying a group is playing poorly because they are using too many resources, are not making tactical ideal choices, or otherwise not playing based upon someone else's assumptions, is a "Bad Thing".

Now, putting this more precise D&D Digital platform would mean that these assumptions would become the expectation. These assumptions would become "canon". Do you not see the harm such would do to the community?

No, that's a ridiculous slippery slope argument. CR is already in the game. You are arguing that making it better at what it's supposed to do - help DM's plan encounters - will lead to X,Y, and Z.

What do you think is going to happen? That after the encounter the group is going to ask the DM how they did in comparison to how deadly the improved CR tool (again, there's already one on DDB) suggested the encounter would be? And then, what, somehow analyze all the data to find out where they could do better? Is that currently happening? No. Why would making the tool a bit more accurate (i.e. by taking into account that the party was at half health with many depleted resources) suddenly turn the party into what you are describing which, yes, to me sounds like rabid optimizers.

Are you suggesting that all these terrible effects are happening with the current CR system? If no, then where is the line where it becomes so disastrous? Making it 10% more accurate? 11%? Conversely, should we be trying to make the current system less accurate, to thus improve the game?

Someone should warn Mearls that his proposal for improving CR could ruin the D&D!

 

[DEFCON 1]

No, that's a ridiculous slippery slope argument. CR is already in the game. You are arguing that making it better at what it's supposed to do - help DM's plan encounters - will lead to X,Y, and Z.

What do you think is going to happen? That after the encounter the group is going to ask the DM how they did in comparison to how deadly the improved CR tool (again, there's already one on DDB) suggested the encounter would be? And then, what, somehow analyze all the data to find out where they could do better? Is that currently happening? No. Why would making the tool a bit more accurate (i.e. by taking into account that the party was at half health with many depleted resources) suddenly turn the party into what you are describing which, yes, to me sounds like rabid optimizers.

Are you suggesting that all these terrible effects are happening with the current CR system? If no, then where is the line where it becomes so disastrous? Making it 10% more accurate? 11%? Conversely, should we be trying to make the current system less accurate, to thus improve the game?

Someone should warn Mearls that his proposal for improving CR could ruin the D&D!

There's a difference though between making Challenge Rating more accurate, and creating a "encounter simulator" meant to suss out fairly precisely what is supposed to happen when the PCs and monsters fight.

I don't disagree that it might help more DMs get better at creating encounters that work for the average table by getting the numbers dialed in a bit better on CR. But I wouldn't want to see that "simulate" anything, because I do agree with @LordEntrails that it would give people a false sense of accuracy-- because it's not possible to simulate something without knowing how those being simulated are going to act.

I mean video games like Madden try to "simulate" the abilities of NFL players and what NFL games will play out like... but it's not like anyone can run a Madden game on auto-play and think that the results are going to be at all similar to when the two teams actually play on the field. It's a nice curiosity, but it is not indicative of anything we can actually expect. So by the same token, we can't "simulate" D&D encounters and think those results will give us anything actually tangible that will occur at the table either. This is why we still have to play the games (both the NFL and D&D.)

 

[Oofta]

The issue with an encounter calculator (or CR calculations for that matter) is assumptions. I have a group I've only DMed a couple of times and set up an encounter that gave them every opportunity to have a surprise attack, which I assumed they would take advantage of. But ... to make a long story short they didn't. Then the raging barbarian that was attacking recklessly kept rolling duplicate 2's and 3's (they needed a 6 to hit), everyone in a cone failed their saves and I practically maxed damage, I rolled more 20s than you could shake a stick attacking with rogues and at one point there was 1 person standing. Even that was only because I roll death saves secretly (everything else is out in the open) and I rolled 20s on their death saves more than once.

In any case, they all survived but it was a die roll away from a TPK. I thought they'd use the surprise attack I handed them, their dice were cold and mine were hot. It happens. That and I haven't DMed them enough to know how to balance things out better. It happens.

I don't think an encounter simulator would have changed much, there was likely a 5-10% chance the fight would go this badly, but every once in a while everyone rolls a 1. Or in my case, a 20. Lots of them.

 

[Incenjucar]

Numbers are very handy. 5E's relative simplicity helps a lot here. You'll never capture the nuance of tactical play but you can at least get a good idea of whether tactical play is needed

 

[Stalker0]

The issue with an encounter calculator (or CR calculations for that matter) is assumptions. I have a group I've only DMed a couple of times and set up an encounter that gave them every opportunity to have a surprise attack, which I assumed they would take advantage of. But ... to make a long story short they didn't. Then the raging barbarian that was attacking recklessly kept rolling duplicate 2's and 3's (they needed a 6 to hit), everyone in a cone failed their saves and I practically maxed damage, I rolled more 20s than you could shake a stick attacking with rogues and at one point there was 1 person standing. Even that was only because I roll death saves secretly (everything else is out in the open) and I rolled 20s on their death saves more than once.

In any case, they all survived but it was a die roll away from a TPK. I thought they'd use the surprise attack I handed them, their dice were cold and mine were hot. It happens. That and I haven't DMed them enough to know how to balance things out better. It happens.

I don't think an encounter simulator would have changed much, there was likely a 5-10% chance the fight would go this badly, but every once in a while everyone rolls a 1. Or in my case, a 20. Lots of them.

This argument though is already an issue with Cr....a big one in fact.

So yes having an encounter simulator wouldn't solve this specific problem....but it still would be better at doing the job overall than CR would, because while there are fights that are just going to blow through your assumptions....there will be fights that don't.

 

[FrogReaver]

The thing is - a simulator doesn’t have to be perfect to be useful.

Most tables don’t have the whole party kite. Most combats don’t have tiny choke points. Etc.

All I need is a decent bunch of AI profiles. Ability to load a simple map with tokens and define terrain regions. Maybe the ability to customize the AI or weight certain actions/goals for the AI. Doesn’t have to be perfect but if user sets parameters up close to their group then the outcomes should be usable.