Dungeon Master Forum

During my many completions of RTC's default dungeons over the course of various versions, I came to the conclusion, that the gHoC score could as well be completely random. In 2 games that have been very very similar in playing style, success and efficiency, I have no idea about what score I will have achieved until I'm done. Sometimes I get a new record, sometimes the score is abysmal.
I think this in mainly not only because of iterative changes made, but mainly because the score calculation includes just too many factors. I mean, all these statistics RTC 44 displays are quite interesting, but they shouldn't all be counted in into the score, because the more values are used, the less predictable the score calculation will be and the easier it will be to exploit.

I therefore suggest reducing the score calculation to just MONSTER KILLING PERCENTAGE and TIME REQUIRED.

DM isn't just about killing monsters quickly, so penalising someone who took the time to sneak past monsters with an untrained party doens't seem fair.

Plus some dungeosn are not about monster killing or have generators (like CSB)

I guess the highest value between monster percentage or some suitable sneaky stat should be used so different playing styles still get comparable scores

Yes Beo, that would be the TIME REQUIRED part.

The damage taken/given seems to be a good indicator too, as if you are sneaky less damage taken but not given, if you fight more damage dealt but more taken

I can see the logic of non-combat being faster, but not convinced it is certain!

But leads to "Oh I got an 895 hp damage fireball, I better reload so I can still go to Valhalla" behaviour.
DM expected you to get hit, heck, it even gives you XP for getting hit. Getting hit shouldn't kill your score. I prefer the chess approach, or B5-Kosh approach if you will - "Some must be sacrificed". So you will fight your way through a chamber full of monsters rather than finding a special spot where you can kill them all without a real fight with enough patience.