Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5635716" data-attributes="member: 42582">To my mind, this all turns on the "could" and the "theoretically".I look at it this way. There are some NPCs who are kings, who live in luxury, and who almost never face threats to their lives. Theoretically, the PCs could live like this. But this would be, in effect, to bring the game to an end. So while PCs could be luxuriating kings, in fact they are not - even if they become kings, they don't luxuriate. They adventure.Likewise, if an NPC wizard can do XYZ than so, theoretically, could a PC wizard. But if XYZ would be unbalancing in the hands of a PC, then while the PC could do it, s/he won't. Just as s/he won't be a luxuriating king. (Note that "balance" here need have nothing to do with combat. A PC having access to unlimited long distance teleportation, or to wish magic, can be unbalancing for all sorts of reasons other than its possible implications for combat.)Of course, that's stated at the metagame level. Within the fiction, why isn't the PC a luxuriating king? Possible answers abound. Maybe s/he was cursed by the gods. Maybe s/he has relentless enemies. Maybe s/he has wanderlust. The player and GM can work it out.And within the fiction, why doesn't the PC wizard master technique XYZ? Maybe s/he doesn't have the time. Or the inclination. Or the personal aptitude. Maybe s/he can't find a teacher. Again, the player and GM can work it out.Obviously this depends on drawing a distinction between the player and the PC, and on consciously permitting metagame concerns (balance, and the PC's role as a protagonist) to shape the fiction. Which may or may not be "dissociative" for any given player.I personally find it interesting that many players - and not just D&D players, because I've seen the same thing on the Rolemaster boards discussing this sort of issue - accept that NPCs can have social status, wealth and the like that PCs of the same level would never be permitted, but arc up when NPCs have magical or martial capabilities that PCs of the same level are not permitted. My tentative hypothesis is that for those with simulationist priorities there is an important distinction between what is "internal" to the PC - like spells known or fighting move mastered - and what is "external" to the PC - like social status, relationships and wealth. In a game like HeroWars/Quest or Burning Wheel, the difference between the "internal" and the "external", in terms of their place in character building and their role in action resolution, is much less stark. As it does in many other respects also, I think 4e heads more in the direction of these latter games - although, and also as in many other respects, it is perhaps a little coy about the fact.</blockquote>

Verification