De canistro textrinum

[Fuchs]

So, consistently using lower CR encoutners than the party level is not a house rule, but ignoring rules entirely? Picking encounters that the party can handle is ignoring the rules? Care to explain?

Strictly speaking what CR encounters a party faces is something that rules don't cover. At least not in the same way the rules cover what happens when you cast magic missile. There are just guidelines the most people expect to be followed.

That isn't what nocker has been advocating though he's arguing for MTP not easy modo.

But you are arguing that using lower CR encounters than party level is bad, and not D&D but MTP:

This is the baseline, yes. But then again, if you're DMing and you realize you don't have SGT50(TM) Certified characters in the party, then you don't challenge them with enemies of that CR. There, problem solved.

No you sure as hell don't do that.

What you do is still send standard encounters at the party and let them be crushed brutally by the game. Then you set their artfully woven baskets on fire and gind their faces into the ashes. They signed up to play D&D and if you let them play pretend when D&D is too hard for them you enable the kind of person who makes the hobby worse for everyone.

If you want to have a magic tea party why are you spending $ on RPG books. You could have run your campagin just fine without them.

So, is D&D "easy mode" D&D or not?

[Aryxbez]

Obviously, nobody thinks D&D equates to something like real life, even to those who do LARP (particularly the lame kind...you know the one).

Now, when I come to play D&D, I want to go around, being BA, buttstabbing awesome monsters, and other creatures of renown in the world. It's pretty cool to know when you've slayed through the ranks to general of hobgob army, taking down dragons, Demon Lords, and even punching Cthulhu himself. Playing in a game where you don't get to fight level appropriate challenges to your power level ,despite that's what "Levels" Mean, is pretty lame. I suppose for a comedic game, mini campaign of few sessions or just a one shot, it's whatever, doesn't matter too much anyway. For a game of D&D, RPG lauded as the go-to game of Heroic Fantasy, going around not getting to be that awesome, not getting to contribute to the game adequately hurts the experience and expectations for everyone. It's bad enough have fans in this hobby, who don't realize how non-casters should have cool and awesome abilities to rock around their buttstabbing careers.

Idea the characters can't be built to even be adequate, sounds like it might be the flaw of D&D's design. Which case I imagine the classes should be better spelled out for players on what it does, what abilities/spells to use, so don't get a situation where the player just tripping over themselves. Obviously, stuff like the Tome Barbarian is pretty "idiot-proof" from what its advertised, it does its thing, and does it well with minimal mental faculties required. Instead of choosing everyone to suck, why not try to boost everyone up to competent levels? Having the group all awesome and cool what they do, means can buttstab more monsters, and otherwise increase their interaction/capabilities within the game world. Not sure why people might condemn the idea of having ability to do more, bettering ability to tell their stories of buttstabbings and what not.

I believe Lord Mistborn is speaking in most/average cases of going into a game, shouldn't be encouraging that all the PC's suck, get carried by a couple other PC's, or worse, some NPC in party/The DM themselves. Not exactly satfisfactory to know the only reason you get to do anything, is because the "DM said so" rather than you playing a game, which has rules, and playing said game with said rules (including houserules agreed on beforehand). Opposed to Fringe cases, where people agreed to playing a party of fighters, lighthearted Gygaxian game, Call of Cthulhu-esque, or whatever else exception to what is normally done with D&D.

[Stubbazubba]

Just letting people play pretend when the game is too hard for them breeds the sort of entitled assholes found on theRPGsite. As well as the sort of culture that TGD exists in opposition to.

Stop.

TGD does not exist in opposition to any culture. TGD exists, so far as I can tell, to talk seriously about game design. How people play is almost always a controversial topic that the Den does not agree on. We are not a char op board, we are designers.

The faster you get that straight the sooner you can stop wasting everyone's time with your mouth-foaming tirades about how accomplished you feel when you win in a game that is so hopelessly broken it is kept afloat only by the combined hot air of its players.

[Mistborn]

I believe Lord Mistborn is speaking in most/average cases of going into a game, shouldn't be encouraging that all the PC's suck, get carried by a couple other PC's, or worse, some NPC in party/The DM themselves. Not exactly satfisfactory to know the only reason you get to do anything, is because the "DM said so" rather than you playing a game, which has rules, and playing said game with said rules (including houserules agreed on beforehand). Opposed to Fringe cases, where people agreed to playing a party of fighters, lighthearted Gygaxian game, Call of Cthulhu-esque, or whatever else exception to what is normally done with D&D.

Imma just +1 this.

TGD does not exist in opposition to any culture. TGD exists, so far as I can tell, to talk seriously about game design. How people play is almost always a controversial topic that the Den does not agree on. We are not a char op board, we are designers.

How people play that game has everything too do with game design. When people assume that MTP is the def ult they write shitty rules/create games that are unplayable. That's why MTP is a problem form a game design perspective.

[Fuchs]

So, is playing D&D with lower CR encounters than party level D&D or not?

[Mr. GC]

So I ignored this thread because it was as stupid as the poorly spelled title would lead me to believe. And then it suddenly grew a few dozen posts.

So ok, we can play this game.

Listen nineball if your party dies to all the monsters than you're going to have a hard time playing a game largely about killing monsters. So when you're rolling up a character it may be a good idea to make sure that you can solo at least half the monsters in your CR bracket (i.e. actually make a CR X PC).

This is the baseline, yes. But then again, if you're DMing and you realize you don't have SGT50(TM) Certified characters in the party, then you don't challenge them with enemies of that CR. There, problem solved.

No you sure as hell don't do that.

What you do is still send standard encounters at the party and let them be crushed brutally by the game. Then you set their artfully woven baskets on fire and gind their faces into the ashes. They signed up to play D&D and if you let them play pretend when D&D is too hard for them you enable the kind of person who makes the hobby worse for everyone.

If you want to have a magic tea party why are you spending $ on RPG books. You could have run your campagin just fine without them.

Goddamnit Misty, stop saying things that make me like you.

Oh and have fun beating the basket weavers that think they are actually worthwhile players into the ground. Seriously, at least the RPGsiters are relatively honest about their incompetence. These losers actually think they have a clue.

[Mistborn]

So, is playing D&D with lower CR encounters than party level D&D or not?

It's D&D just on easy modo



Seriously this isn't Touhou. I had a functional character on my third try without reading any CharOp forums. I find it hard to believe that anyone is incapable of picking up how to make a halfway decent character.

[Mr. GC]

This is the forum where people have seriously claimed:

"Rogues should fear Lightning Bolt."

"Spells that can at most hit half the party will kill all of it."

"Orcs should drop Raise Dead scrolls, but only if they kill someone."

"How can I kill sub 60 HP no defense?"

"Much herpaderp about 3 damage enemies when the conversation was explicitly about something else."

"We have Will save effects, let's be afraid of a bunch of things super weak to them!"

Believe it.

[Fuchs]

So, is playing D&D with lower CR encounters than party level D&D or not?

It's D&D just on easy modo

Seriously this isn't Touhou. I had a functional character on my third try without reading any CharOp forums. I find it hard to believe that anyone is incapable of picking up how to make a halfway decent character.

The point is not how good you are, the point is that you first claimed in this very thread that playing "easy mode" was not even D&D, but MTPing. Now you admit at least that it's still D&D.

What is considered a "functional character" or "halfway decent" is mostly dependent on the specific DM/campaign combo it's used in.

[Stubbazubba]

So, is playing D&D with lower CR encounters than party level D&D or not?

It's D&D just on easy modo

So if the rules permit it, why is it not OK for other people to do?

I had a functional character on my third try without reading any CharOp forums. I find it hard to believe that anyone is incapable of picking up how to make a halfway decent character.

Who's saying it's hard to do?

[Mistborn]

The point is not how good you are, the point is that you first claimed in this very thread that playing "easy mode" was not even D&D, but MTPing. Now you admit at least that it's still D&D.

What is considered a "functional character" or "halfway decent" is mostly dependent on the specific DM/campaign combo it's used in.

I was responding to nocker who has in this thread mixed repeated avocation of MTP with calling for DM to easy mode weak parties.

As for what is a functional character if you have >50% success rate vs stock monsters of your CR then you are prepared to play standard D&D. (though probably not games where the DM is optimizing the monsters)

Edit

Who's saying it's hard to do?

If it's so easy why are people wailing like babies when I say that people should come to games with a character that meets these minimum standards.

[Fuchs]

I quoted you, you clearly said it was not D&D if it was easy mode.

I bet that for quite a few groups, your style would be considered "easy mode" too, for various reasons (power level, GM tactics, house rules).

[Fuchs]

Edit

Who's saying it's hard to do?

If it's so easy why are people wailing like babies when I say that people should come to games with a character that meets these minimum standards.

That's not an argument at all. It's also easy - even more so - to adjust the difficulty of an encounter as a GM if your group has weaker characters, yet you are all vexed about some people doing that in some games you don't even know about, and feel the need to insult them.

You need to give a good reason - other than "I like it" - for why everyone should play at that exact powerlevel you advocate.

[Mistborn]

That's not an argument at all. It's also easy - even more so - to adjust the difficulty of an encounter as a GM if your group has weaker characters, yet you are all vexed about some people doing that in some games you don't even know about, and feel the need to insult them.

You need to give a good reason - other than "I like it" - for why everyone should play at that exact powerlevel you advocate.

Do people really want to be told that they aren't tall enough to D&D as written. The CR system assumes that a PC of level X is of CR X. Unless people want to be still killing level 2 boars at epic.

[Stubbazubba]

If it's so easy why are people wailing like babies when I say that people should come to games with a character that meets these minimum standards.

Short answer: Because you're a moron.

Long answer: Because there are more facets of RPGs than the combat simulator, and those are viable play-spaces that people enjoy playing in. Playing a low-op game on easy mode and relying on MTP to fill in all the gaps where D&D is woefully incomplete is entirely within the framework of the rules, in fact it is the beauty and purpose of having toolbox-style rules and a human MC to execute them. People who believe that the combat simulator is the end-all of the enjoyment of the genre and actively deride those who disagree are hurting the gaming community for the sole purpose of masturbating to their own egos*. They're narrow-minded, unpleasant, and ultimately detrimental to the hobby. But beyond that they are ignorant of the fact that the rules do not stipulate how hard anything should or should not be. What you are calling "standard D&D" was created by accident, not design, and was never intended to be a baseline for anything to be judged against. There are no rules about when to fight what monsters, that's the whole idea of a toolbox. Playing D&D on easy mode is no less of an abuse of the system than playing it on hard mode is. That's the irony you have failed to realize in all of your juvenile vitriol and self-inflating crusading. Ergo, you're a moron.

*: Of course this runs both ways; basket-weavers who deride min-maxers and those who enjoy meatgrinder campaigns and try to ostracize them are also stupid and should get over themselves, but that's not really a problem here on the Den.

[Fuchs]

That's not an argument at all. It's also easy - even more so - to adjust the difficulty of an encounter as a GM if your group has weaker characters, yet you are all vexed about some people doing that in some games you don't even know about, and feel the need to insult them.

You need to give a good reason - other than "I like it" - for why everyone should play at that exact powerlevel you advocate.

Do people really want to be told that they aren't tall enough to D&D as written. The CR system assumes that a PC of level X is of CR X. Unless people want to be still killing level 2 boars at epic.

So, you think "other players you don't even know nor will ever play with are looking down on you for playing such a weak character in a game they don't even know of" is a good reason to make everyone play on your level?

I think you take "D&D player reputation" a bit too seriously. Just a tiny bit, of course. I am sure there are many rational, mature players who fear others would think they are "elementary kids" because they are playing D&D on easy mode. No, really.

[Mr. GC]

The point is not how good you are, the point is that you first claimed in this very thread that playing "easy mode" was not even D&D, but MTPing. Now you admit at least that it's still D&D.

What is considered a "functional character" or "halfway decent" is mostly dependent on the specific DM/campaign combo it's used in.

I was responding to nocker who has in this thread mixed repeated avocation of MTP with calling for DM to easy mode weak parties.

As for what is a functional character if you have >50% success rate vs stock monsters of your CR then you are prepared to play standard D&D. (though probably not games where the DM is optimizing the monsters)

Actually, this is wrong, and this is where most of the basket weaver rage comes in.

Because see, that ignores the part of the game where a significant portion of encounters are higher level and on average, end up being higher level than you.

So if you have say, 51% SGT rating, or even something like 60% or 70% you still lose horribly to standard D&D where the average encounter is not even level, but is actually about 1-2 levels higher. Seriously. Count it up.

If it's so easy why are people wailing like babies when I say that people should come to games with a character that meets these minimum standards.

Because basket weaver bitches hate being held to actual standards, as they are invariably incapable of meeting those standards.

That mentality can and should be beaten into the ground wherever it is found. It is the reason why tabletop games, unlike every other type of game have almost no good players. People are encouraged to regard the concept of competence as anathema.

[name_here]

Because Frank and K have never created powerful characters.

Alternately, you might be a moronic jackass.

[Mr. GC]

Because Frank and K have never created powerful characters.

Alternately, you might be a moronic jackass.

That just makes their fall into basket weaverism all the more offensive.

How the fuck do you go from something like this, that makes even optimizers go and act like basket weavers, to saying shit like "Orcs should drop Raise Dead scrolls, but only if they kill someone."

No really. How the hell do you?

Edit: Yeah, let's drop that nuke right fucking now, because this shit is so crazy even I'd think I was making it up if I didn't actually see it.

Okay no. the DM can't just decide "Not to kill a PC" and fuck you for repeating that stupid fallacy. The dice rolls are killing the PCs, not the DM.

Lets say you have a battle with a single orc (CR 1) against a party of 4 1st level dudes. Not only is this not a deadly encounter, it's an easy encounter. Everyone rolls initiative and the orc wins. Now what does the DM have the orc do? Does it sit there and twiddle its thumbs waiting to die, or does it charge with its greataxe?

Okay, lets assume the DM wants to keep some measure of verisimilitude and has the orc charge the nearest PC. The orc rolls a natural 20, following by an 18 to confirm. Well given the orc has 17 strength, hes doing 1d12+4 damage, with an x3 critical. Even an average damage roll does 30 damage, so likely, someone is going to fucking die here. The encounter was fair, the monster was fair, and people just got unlucky.

So do you then stand up and start whining at the DM for picking you as the guy the orc attacked? Even though you know damn well the attack would have splattered any of your other companions?

How the fuck is this the DM's fault? Seriously dude.

IF you are going to choose an example, I'm going to be forced to make you look stupid in public.

First, the DM has already decided to dramatically increase the odds of killing the PCs because he changed the base orc entry to use a greatax with an average crit of 30 instead of the listed falchion with an average crit of 20 damage. That's huge because it's the difference between killing a Fighter with one hit and dropping one with one hit.

Second, he chose to not use the listed javelin.

Third, knowing that 1st level PCs are made out of glass he made the choice to not to use a less lethal weapon like a shortsword or a knife.

Fourth, he chose to use an orc when a less lethal monster would be appropriate. How about a goblin? They have a Str of 11 and their crits are lot less lethal for 1st levels.

Fifth, the orc didn't use nonlethal damage or choose to disarm the PC instead. He could have had any number of reasons to do so, but instead the DM chose to risk PC auto-death.

Sixth, he killed a PC and didn't then alter the narrative to bring that PC back. He could have had a noble lord or town mayor or angel or hero in the area hear about the epic orc battle and chose to resurrect the slain PC as a reward or to get the party to do a quest for them. He could have left a magic item that would bring the PC back in the orc's treasure. He could have had the PC rise again as an undead creature and have the eventual return to life earned somehow. He could have had any number of plot threads bring that PC back, but instead he chose to punish the PC for.... why again?

Are they being punished for not surviving an attack they couldn't survive? Good job blaming the victim.

The DM executed the PC for no reason, then told the player to man up and make another. Like a dick.

These are the actual words he actually said.

[virgil]

Actually, I suck cock and like to bite, and this is where most of the basket weaver rage comes in.

Because see, that ignores the part of the game where a significant portion of encounters have me flip the table in self-righteous disgust, and end up higher than you because of all the drugs.

So if you have say, 51% SGT rating, or even something like 60% or 110% you still lose horribly to standard D&D where the average encounter is not even level, but is actually about 1-2 levels higher. Seriously. Count it up, because I can't. I just failed remedial math and geometry for the third year in a row.

If it's so easy why are people wailing like babies when I say that people should come to games with a character that meets these minimum standards.

Because basket weaver bitches hate being near me, and I am invariably incapable of meeting those standards.

That mentality can and should be beaten into the ground wherever it is found, in the dirt like my self-respect was. It is the reason why tabletop games, like every other type of game, have almost no players that both hate the things I don't like and crudely attempt to mock all other players. People are encouraged to regard the concept of me as anathema.

Ordinarily, people don't open themselves up in such a trusting manner on the internet. I find such frankness encouraging, and am glad you decided to do such.

[nockermensch]

Lord Mistborn's "stop having fun doing things I don't like!" stance is pretty cringeworthy, but why are you all letting nockermensch's incoherent tirades pass without eyerolling? Is it the TL;DR effect brought about by his monstrously long walls of text?

I mean, let's look at the first post. Actually, let's not because it's way too fucking long and doesn't go anywhere. Let's look at a much shorter version of the first post:

Guys! I've played in MTP-heavy campaigns! Like where we mostly used MTP to cover portions of the story that aren't described well or at all by the rules - like estate management, romance, and bloodline perpetuation. And we were allowed to play nominally unusual character types based on events in the setting!

The correct answer to that is to raise eyebrows and ask "So fucking what? That's how D&D works. To the extent it works at all, it has always been by shunting to MTP when the rules are incomplete. Character options are always supposed to be limited by the setting, so any character option that is made available by the setting is not rule-breaking to have". I have no fucking idea how he thinks any of that is a condemnation of "Den Style" or an endorsement of anything at all really. It's not an argument, it's like someone ranting for a page and a half about the time they found a whole quarter on the sidewalk.

The part it goes off the rails is the part where he talks about deciding that one of the characters is important and then turning on the invincibility codes for that character. That is the part that is fucking insane. I cannot imagine a more juvenile and unfair way to pretend to play D&D than that.

-Username17

Frank, please

Look to the part of your post I bolded. Now look back to Misty and the clown's hilariously angry and confused tirades. Realize at once that they didn't get the memo that D&D works like that. They didn't get the memo because MTP is usually, as you pointed, something that "just happens", and you can't really write about it in the structured way you do about crunch/rules. What you can do is write anecdotes about it, but then you run the risk of having them sounding insulting and/or patronizing to people outside, because a lot of context will be missing. The result is that you don't write about them at all, and then you just created an involuntary secret club of people who "get it".

That you refer to the out-of-rule moments as finding a quarter on the sidewalk should be an eye-opener for them, because from their PoV, those moments would be like stepping in shit. This cognitive shock is what caused the clown's surprise at noticing that the Den is not on his boat. When I say that this is a condemnation of the Den's style I'm talking exactly about this: A superficial reading of the Den's posts and angry rants will in fact lead people to believe that MTP is inherently bad. I know, because I used to get this same feel, until I read the Elothar Warrior of Bladereach PrC again and realized that you guys are also "get" what D&D is, but only talk about it obliquely. I figured that it was alright and just let it be, until the clown's entrance made me see the bad side of it.

Executive summary: Some people seriously didn't notice you can hack D&D above and beyond the wargame it pretends to be and that this is an expected and memorable part of the game's experience. This is the problem. Now, are you a bad enough dude to do something about it?

_________________
@ @ Nockermensch, Re: criticism of our old campaigns: You had to be there, man. You had to be there.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Making one guy "the chosen one" doesn't generally make for good group dynamics.

It can be if it's an NPC.

In one campaign, we were a party of neutral-to-evil sneaky manipulative types (made up of a buffer-spec bard, a debuffer-spec paladin/blackguard, a beguiler/shadowcraft mage, a dread necromancer, and a warlock/ur priest/eldritch theurge, as I recall) and had to deal with a prophecy where the MacGuffin weapon had to be wielded by a Chosen One who was "pure of heart" and "untainted by sin" and blah blah blah. The idea was, I assume, for us to get a Good guy to cooperate with us without coercion, mind control, or our other standard tactics, but we decided that would be too boring.

Instead, we acquired a copy of the prophecy, figured out what dramatic events a person had to accomplish to be anointed the Chosen One by the high priest of Pelor, and went out to a random backwater town disguised as priests of Pelor. We went on stakeout for a few days looking for the lowest-level, weakest-stat, most comically-inept commoner we could find; once we'd made our choice, we set up a few illusions, rode into town with much fanfare, and explained that the Prophecy declared that the Chosen One would be found in this town, indicated by the signs that just happened to have occurred. We found our man, called out "YOU ARE THE CHOSEN ONE!" and convinced him that he was indeed the Hero of Legend who would defeat the Ultimate Evil.

We then proceeded to lie, cheat, bribe, make illusions, spread rumors, hire mercenaries, read and alter memories, assassinate witnesses, and do everything else in our power to fake the miraculous occurrences necessary for the prophecy, all the while being careful to keep THE CHOSEN ONE and the town priest of Pelor who had accompanied him convinced that he was the one actually accomplishing the twenty-something Heroic Deeds necessary of him. Of course, we kept the evil artifacts that were supposed to have been destroyed, reanimated the evil dragons under our control, promptly re-conquered liberated towns, etc. in our free time.

Finally all the Heroic Deeds were completed, and when THE CHOSEN ONE was subjected to all of the necessary tests, he passed with flying colors because he actually did believe everything was happening as we said it was. He rode out and (once again with our help, since he was still a level 1 commoner at this point) defeated the Ultimate Evil to much rejoicing...at which point we knocked out his companions, disguised them as us, sold THE CHOSEN ONE off to a demon prince in our Bad Guy personas, tipped off some archons about it in our Good Guy personas while framing the good guys disguised as us, helped the archons retrieve THE CHOSEN ONE and capture the "Bad Guys," helped the demons rescue the "Bad Guys," ensured THE CHOSEN ONE was "accidentally" slain in the attempt, and left the archons and demons at each other's throats each convinced that the others were behind the whole thing.

Okay, I can definitely agree with this. If I personally am playing in a game and a "Chosen One" shows up, I will gleefully use it as an excuse to skip any jobs that look tedious. There have even been games in the past where I've been like "Hey guys, this job looks like it might be a real threat. Maybe we should go find a hero to do it for them instead." Deliberately taking the sidekick role can be very entertaining if everyone's down with the idea.

[Fuchs]

Deliberately taking the sidekick role can be very entertaining if everyone's down with the idea.

That's the key part people often don't get. As long as everyone is having fun, having a chosen one or whatever in the game is not bad.

Edit: That should read: As long as everyone is having fun and is happy with the game.

[fectin]

Mistborn, people are arguing because you haven't shown that optimization is any of:
A) ever good for your game
B) always good for your game
C) uniquely good for your game
D) ever good for the hobby
E) always good for the hobby
F) uniquely good for the hobby.

Ignoratio Elenchi is a broad class of fallacies which includes strawmen and red herrings. Loosely, it's "ignorance of rebuttal," and refers to making an argument or offering evidence in purported response to an original point, but which does not address the original point. For example, if I say "FATAL is a poorly designed game," and you respond "when run well, FATAL can be fun to play," that's ignoratio: FATAL may or may not be fun; that's independent of whether it's well designed.

You may recognize this style of 'argument' from a different board ("With a good DM it isn't a problem!"). That, and the weird autism fetish are the only things I actually found frustrating over there, though there are many points I disagreed on.

I mention this because you're beginning to fall into the same trap. When you conflate "optimization is easy" with "optimization is good" (for whatever value of 'good' you're arguing for) and present them as interchangeable rebuttals, your posts descend towards Benoist-style "I had fun once, therefore there are no problems with anything."

Step back, think it through, and come at it fresh. Pick one of the points above, assert it, and then explain why. Even around here, you'll find that goes a lot more smoothly.

[Mr. GC]

Actually, I suck cock and like to bite, and this is where most of the basket weaver rage comes in.

Because see, that ignores the part of the game where a significant portion of encounters have me flip the table in self-righteous disgust, and end up higher than you because of all the drugs.

So if you have say, 51% SGT rating, or even something like 60% or 110% you still lose horribly to standard D&D where the average encounter is not even level, but is actually about 1-2 levels higher. Seriously. Count it up, because I can't. I just failed remedial math and geometry for the third year in a row.

If it's so easy why are people wailing like babies when I say that people should come to games with a character that meets these minimum standards.

Because basket weaver bitches hate being near me, and I am invariably incapable of meeting those standards.

That mentality can and should be beaten into the ground wherever it is found, in the dirt like my self-respect was. It is the reason why tabletop games, like every other type of game, have almost no players that both hate the things I don't like and crudely attempt to mock all other players. People are encouraged to regard the concept of me as anathema.

Ordinarily, people don't open themselves up in such a trusting manner on the internet. I find such frankness encouraging, and am glad you decided to do such.

You forgot to say translated. You also forgot to accurately translate. You also forgot to stop failing at life, and taking cock A into slots B-Z.

But let's ignore your herpaderp fest and look at the actual rules and the actual things being said.

You are playing standard D&D, aka adhering to the lowest possible standards you can while still playing D&D. Here is your encounter distribution, according to those rules you hate so much because they fuck your ass over harder than your mom does.

10%: Level -1.
50%: Level +0.
8.75%: Level +1.
8.75%: Level +2.
8.75%: Level +3.
8.75%: Level +4.
5%: Level +5.

And this is using the most generous assumptions. Now you average that out. I know, math is hard, and you'll babble some bullshit in a furtive, desperate attempt to dodge, or falsely claim this averages 0, but you will be entirely wrong on both counts just as you always are and always will.

The actual average is level +1.05. Now stuff two levels higher is twice as strong, so stuff only one level higher is somewhere in between 100-200% strength. Point is you can pass a SGT and totally fail actual D&D because actual D&D is significantly harder than the SGT that supposedly models actual D&D, even by default.

There's also the small factor that while the average is level +1 (because let's just round that off) there is a non zero chance of encountering things up to four times more difficult than average. At least.

So if you can only deal with average, you get rofflestomped on a regular basis anyways. Even when using the most lax definition of standard D&D.

And we're still just discussing standard D&D, we haven't even gotten into chain raping minotaurs and invisible flying Sorcerers spamming multiple save or loses per round or any of the stuff that happens when you assume the opposition is actually competent.