I hear what you're saying. But I see it as a field, where moving away from simulationism doesn't necessarily bring you closer to gamism, and vice versa. It's easy to imagine some terrible rules that don't do anything for either priority, right?
It is.
I basically look at the contentious features of 4e and see an abandoning of simulationism for no real purpose. E.g. the homogenization of classes with the AEDU framework -- I find that offensive to both my simulationist sense AND my gamist sense.
For the record, I find 4e classes to be a lot
less homogenous than 3.X classes. 3.X only starts coming close to the versatility of 4e character concepts when you include the alternate casting systems such as in the Bo9S, the incredible range of poorly balanced monster PC options, and the rest of the bloat.
Almost all pre-Bo9S martial PCs are one trick ponies, stacking feats and class features to make for it being a better trick. Now to me that's homogenous. All wizards are effectively almost interchangeable (barring specialist/banned schools). They just need to swap equipment - i.e. spellbooks. Literally the only difference in casting between clerics is their domain spells. And with druids, not even that. This, to me, is a snoozefest of homogeneity.
In 4e even within the same class a wizard specialising in pyromancy with a minor in evocation is not going to resemble a wizard specialising in illusion with a minor in enchantment in any way except training in arcana and being squishy. The only overlapping spell is probably going to be Prestadigitatation (and there's a possibility neither's going to take it). This makes our two wizards almost as different as a 3.5 wizard is from a cleric.
As for our melee classes in 4e being homogenous, I've built a barbarian beserker who wasn't even homogenous with
himself. He had three daily powers - and each one fundamentally changed the way he played in combat. One expanded his defender aura. With his greatspear he
owned the ground around himself. One made him act like his normal violent self but moreso, lashing out hard against anyone who hurt his friends. And with the third he'd pick a single foe and tear into them, stabbing ferociously before continuing to the next target. In all three cases he was awesome - in different ways.
And then there's homogeneity between the skill users. In 3.X your skill level in a given skill is just about it. There are about three feats that open up how you can use a given skill. Rogues get tricks
from level 10. The number differs slightly, but the impact doesn't. About the only thing to significantly change the way skills can be used is Complete Scoundrel. 4e has utility powers. And Utility powers can fundamentally change the uses of skills. Stealth isn't just stealth - some characters are qualitatively better at hiding than others, able to hide where others couldn't even where others are quantitatively better.
So no, I don't find 4e classes more homogenous than 3.X classes. I find them significantly less so.
And AEDU is neither simulationist nor gamist. It significantly helps
narrativist play. It's a pacing mechanic. Default, 1/scene, limit break.
I've never needed or wanted that level of class balance from a game point of view, so for me it's simultaneously more gamey and less fun, because they nerfed some of the awesome out of the spells, and there's just less variety in that portion of the game in general.
Well, yes. When literally all the awesome in 3.X is concentrated into one small mechanic (the spells) - to the point that an attempt to give non-casters some awesome is dismissed by many as 'Weaboo Fitan Magic' it needs to be shared around.
I think the idea was to accentuate rather than counteract the different power curves amongst the classes, because they thought it was fun.
Indeed. There were two parts to that tradeoff however. The first is that 1st level Magic Users were crap, having only one random spell, no armour, and terrible hit points. It was a reward to make up for the first four levels sucking. The second is that the game more or less stopped at 9th/10th level. The highest level PC in Greyhawk was
14th level. So the wizard dominance lasted only a couple of levels before the fighter was given an army and both were expected to more or less retire.
Literally every single one of these balancing factors except armour (Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt anyone?) had gone by 3.X. Which made playing a wizard at low levels much more fun. A first level 3.X wizard starts off with not one random spell, but his intelligence modifier level in spells he selected, and the ability to cast three spells plus a handful of cantrips per day. Which meant a first level wizard wasn't an excercise in frustration that it often was in oD&D. This was in many ways a good design decision - it increased the fun. On the downside it meant that the wizard was no longer behind at 1st level, and he scaled better than ever. Different power curves can be fun - if there's a reward for taking a handicap. But the handicap had been eliminated by the 3.0 rules. Which gave the 4e designers two choices. Either they could revert to the oD&D design decision and nerf the low level wizard into suckitude again or they could keep the 3.X design decision but follow it through by starting the wizard at the same level as everyone else - and then having them level with everyone else. They chose 3.X.
[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], starting with an Int of 16 is all very well. But that means by level 8 they should probably have an Int of 18 and certainly a +2 headband of intellect and possibly a +4 (especially if they spent a feat on crafting wondrous items - a very good investment, and they can make even the +6 version at level 8). Also assume spell focus if they are conjuring a lot. That's a total Int of 22 (with the +4 version) with spell focus, for a +7. Or Glitterdust DC 19. And I'm not particularly redlining here.