Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4488222" data-attributes="member: 42582">Thanks.Both the above quotes assume that the players are making an assumption, namely, that difficulty of an encounter for their PCs equates to relative ingame prowess. That is, both are assuming that the players have simulationist expectations.If players do not have simulationist expectations - that is, for example, if the players have embraced alternative metagame explanations for the +.5 per level that various creatures receive, such as those canvassed by me upthread - then the players won't draw the inference that difficulty of encounter corresponds to ingame prowess. And thus no damage will be done, and no consistency will arise in the gameworld.To repeat: the frequent suggestion that narrativist play involves a sacrifice of ingame consistency for story verges on the derogatory. What narrativist play abandons is a consistent ingame interpretation of the mechanics. But that has nothing to do with the consistency of the gameworld. It is just a different, non-simulationist, set of metagame expectations.Agreed. For the past year or so, my participation in these threads has simply been aimed at (i) pointing out that coherent narrativist play is possible, (ii) pointing out that 4e supports it better than 3E, and that 4e supports simulationism less well than 3E, and (iii) that narrativist play does not mean abandoning consistency of the gameworld.</blockquote>