Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4270538" data-attributes="member: 42582">As you know, I agree at least to an extent.If there is an incoherence here I agree with your resolution of it. It can perhaps be saved from incoherence by noting that the "as if" is ambiguous as between simulationist "as if" (player is slave of pre-defined PC) or author-stance "as if" (player is allowed to narrate character in a way that is interesting and serves narrative or gamist purposes, but is conscious that this narration is constituting the character as a distinct persona). In that case, the "in the shoes" language could be read as an implicit way of warding off pawn stance.This can be read as a reminder to avoid pawn stance, but again your suggestion of incoherence is plausible. It's a bit problematic, also, given that big parts of 4e (hit points, healing surges, martial daily powers, minions, etc) require a degree of metagame thinking to get the narration right. Does the DMG or PHB say anything useful about this issue?I think this is a bigger problem than the PC/player issue, because gamism can handle illusionism or even railroading about world and plot, but not illusionism about challenge. The solution is to hope that the encounter builiding tools are robust enough that it is possible, almost all of the time, to design encounters that fit the specification.If the encounters are working in this fashion, then it won't be fatal to the gamist experience that the GM railroads a story out of it. If the encounter design tools are not as robust as advertised, then the problem becomes more serious.I think this is also tricky. One thing that you don't seem to have taken account of, however, is the treasure component of reward. Maybe failure leads to less treasure, making the PCs slighly underpowerd for their level? I also like your idea of Quest XP as the equaliser - is that your own work, or does the DMG expressly address the issue?A broader consideration is this: players who enjoy gamist D&D often don't want the encounters to become easier - the way that they enjoy their advancement is by getting to do more (tactically and game-mechanically) complex stuff. But characters who don't advance as quickly still get to do stuff that is challenging for their level. So where's the penalty for losing? Again, an answer might be to reduce treasure on level-up. Hence, presumably, the GP cost for the Raise Dead and other healing rituals, for rituals that allow skill challenges to be won or bypassed without having to engage in as clever play, etc.Anyway, an intersting post. And I agree that illusionist/railroading simulationism is the monster under D&D's bed. It's a shame that 4e hasn't unambiguously exorcised it.I agree with this to an extent. But I also think that WoTC have an interest in those who play D&D for the first time having a fun experience. And (at least in my opion) railroading GMing (and related sins like beating players around the head with the "Your character wouldn't do that" stick) is one of the reasonably common causes of an unhappy D&D experience.I think how-to-play text that was more upfront about giving players the right to decide during play who their PC is, and which was also more upfront about the players' responsibility to produce a story by keeping their PCs alive via good tactical play, wouldn't necessarily hurt. And such text might reduce the abashedness that Skeptic is diagnosing.</blockquote>

Verification