I know that but there could be rules built into the system to handle this. Like how to handle mobs, how to make falling more realistic, a simple way to just scale city guardsmen or make bows more of a threat.
For me, 4E handles those all fine
for the type of game I want to use D&D for. For other types of game, I will use a different system.
English longbows were devastating yet they are a sub optimal weapon in DnD at higher levels.
I assume this is a 3.x thing? A ranger with a longbow in 4E can be devastating at any level.
They should be able to make a game where the DM gets to decide just how realistic he wants his game to be.
Yes - as a GM I do exactly that. My answer feeds strongly into what system I will use for the game I am contemplating.
Telling us to just go play something else is losing customers for DnD something I thought they wanted to fix.
All I am doing is explaining what I do - what I have done since 1990 or so. I play D&D
and other systems. When I plan a game, I first decide what "style" or "tenor" of game I want - what I want the players to be engaging with as they play - and then I choose a system to use that will support those aims. Picking a system and then either demanding that it be flexible to all my ends or spending endless effort warping it so that it approximately meets my needs seems needlessly obtuse, to me. There are hundreds of RPG systems out there - a resource I make use of as and how I need to.
The discussion one side is trying to have is "I'd like the game to be able to make low groups dangerous at all levels." Yes, it fits within the spirit of D&D: it happens at low and mid-low levels. However, characters grow out of that. We're agreed that it's the case. Now, one side is trying to say "I don't like that it happens, and would like to see an alternative."
Simple answer - cap levels. Not a full or ideal answer; the full answer is "change the system". This could be done by houseruling, rewriting the system or just picking a system that supports what you are trying to do from the start. Pick any option.
Trying to persuade a bunch of professional designers to write the system you want is also a possibility, but it seems somewhat extreme as a solution, to me.
No. What YOU just described REALLY is the essence of that slanderous term ROLLPLAY.
What you described is pure mechanics and predestination.
What you described is actively avoiding being inside JONES or BONDS head and having those thoughts but is instead inside the audience members head having those thoughts and metaknowledge that the characters can and should never ever have.
Roleplay is about being inside the role with the knowledge, experiences and fears of that guy. That is absolutely NOT what you have described.
This is just an attempt to define "roleplaying" as "immersive play" - to which I say hooey.
Follow on with "hit points and levels are not helpful to immersive play" to which I would say "no s#!t, Sherlock!"
But that brings up the problem of the barmaid levelling with you.
I always prefer it if barmaids level with me.
Just tell me the price of the beer straight - I can take it.
