I may have a lot to post on these subjects later but I just wanted to address this wrong premise. Subsequent extrapolation from an incorrect premise like this is going to make conversation impossible.
The point of tight encounter guidelines, math, and budgeting is not system bias towards "the desired outcome of the party winning." The point is to create a formalized, predictable, reproducable baseline for the GM. Accompanying that, the system framework and instructions should be robust such that it reliably forecasts the outcomes of perturbing that baseline up and down (from a walkover - if you, the GM, wishes - all the way up to an outright guaranteed TPK - if you, the GM, wishes). IME this is always important but even more important in a complex combat system such as 4e with as many vectors and moving parts that are part of the formula. These are GM-side tools to consistently facilitate whatever difficulty the GM is looking for out of a desired encounter. Framing the encounter and fairly telegraphing the difficulty is a GM principle, technique and skill thing. A tight formula is utterly indifferent to those aesthetics.
I don't know why this absurd cultural meme that 4e specifically, and encounter budgeting generally, promotes this kiddy pool culture with everyone getting a medal nonsense. Since it didn't die on the vine where it should have, could we maybe put it on its pyre, light it up and dance on its stupid ashes now? No productive conversation can come from the fruits of such a distortion of basic premise (and the inevitably incorrect extrapolations made from it). I want tight, codified encounter guidelines, math, and budgeting for the exact same reason I want predictable forensic science and understanding to rely upon when I undergo an engineering project or when I'm performing sensitivity tests. It has nothing to do with "coddling, kiddy pool, everyone gets a medal" culture and neither the system specifically, nor the concept of encounter budgeting generally, promotes such a culture. It promotes precision and predictability (as a GM tool).
I have a lot of differing views on general RPG design from you @
Manbearcat, but in this instance this is dead-center spot on.
Encounter budgets have NOTHING to do with "making the party win."
Unless of course, as a GM, it
serves your intentions. In which case, you ABSOLUTELY want to have guidelines to serve that intent.
If there's one, tiny, hidden argument that can easily derail "simulationist" arguments, it's the simple fact that no matter how "simulationist" you want your rules and system to be,
ultimately the GM controls what the players encounter.
In any number of situations, it may be perfectly reasonable to encounter a TPK-level threat, or a milquetoast pushover encounter in a given scene. The scene setup, world, situation, etc., may allow for either in a perfectly "simulationist" fashion. As long as the GM can rationally provide a "simulationist" reason for the encounter, either one may fit the bill.
But which one does the GM actually WANT the players to experience? Totally up to the GM.
In this light, having ENCOUNTER GUIDELINES is a massively good thing---
because you've set up the encounter the way you expect it to play out.
How many GM's have set up a scene in a game, thinking it should be a "manageable" encounter, consistent with the "simulationist" needs of the setup . . . . only to have the party struggle mightily to stay alive, or be a total pushover with unexpected post-scene consequences?
There's no contradiction between something being "simulationist," and having the ability to predict the outcome. If anything, it's MORE simulationist, because it follows real-world military and business modeling. As a CEO, you want to be able to predict as accurately as possible the outcome of any business path before you do it. Real-world people make real-world decisions using this mindset.
Unless as a GM you're purposefully trying to surpise the PCs, in a simulationist world the PCs are going to be searching for every bit of representational data about an encounter . . . . because "simulatively" they're going to want to know
if they can handle what's in front of them or not.
If you as a GM don't have any idea whether the PCs can actually handle an encounter, how can you accurately represent that information to them "simulatively" through the game world?
