Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LurkAway" data-source="post: 5745986" data-attributes="member: 6685059">I think the 3E approach has its flaws, at least one being that NPCs use the same skill points and level track, but yes, I don't think that PCs get better at everything in a more simulationist game. I don't think that wizards get better at bashing doors and I don't Hercules gets better at basketweaving after fighting through his 12 labors.If the numbers work out in your game otherwise, that's great; I don't  know how that would play out in practice for an average simulationist  game.For me, if the rules set the stereotype that all heroes are standardized to get better at everything, and one buys into that stereotype, then one is less likely to imagine a world where heroes don't get better at some or many things, and this informs the reality of the fiction itself, such that the abstraction can become more real to the player than what might otherwise be (depending on the group's preferences). So the rule informs the fiction from the top down, rather than allow the group to use the rules to build the fiction from the bottom up.In contrast, I do see a direct correlation between between level and combat prowess, since D&D heroes get so much practice at combat, so it's a generalization that works for me. It may be a stereotype that heroes are great in combat, but it's not an unfair one.</blockquote>