Simulationism vs other approaches to play
I would suggest they would do well by first setting a baseline, probably using a standard human guardsman, then set the 1st level Fighter to be "a cut above" that.
A standard human guardsman might be an equal match for a standard orc warrior, so a 1st level PC would be slightly above that. A standard human guardsman might go down with one blow from an orc, while a PC would either take a crit to fell or two solid hits.
This presupposes that levels and character attack/defence/damage stats play a simulationist/modelling role - that by looking at a game elements stats, you know something about its power within the gameworld.
I don't think 4e as written takes this approach, and for me at least that is a strength.
A human guardsman has whatever stats the GM gives him. The constraints on the GM here are ones of genre and verisimilitude - eg if I have a PC who is a Knight Commander or a Demigod then it will seem strange if the average human guardsman is much of a bother to that PC in combat - but I don't need mechanics to help me make those sorts of decisions. Rather, having made those sorts of decisions, I can place my monsters, stat them up and label them accordingly.
I really, strongly, do not think that character levels reflects any sort of real or fictional phenomenon. It's a game mechanism, pure and simple.
<snip>
It seems to me that the purpose of the N levels (N = 30 or whatever) is to keep play varied and (more) interesting over a long campaign of challenge-based play. It also gives players some feeling of "reward" for challenges beaten. That's it. No more to see.
I agree level is a game mechanism. In my view, though, in 4e it's not just for the gamist purpose you give. It's also to lead the players through "the story of D&D" - assuming that the GM mostly used published monsters, and doesn't vary them more than +/- 4 levels as the DMG suggests, then (roughly) the PCs start out fighting kobolds and end up fighting Orcus.
It is against the backdrop of this story that the actual campaign then unfolds. Personally I like this, although I don't know what effect it has on replay value (I'm still in my first 4e campaign).
Even if these characters don't level up, I still think it's useful to have some idea of where they sit in the level range. It makes it easier when you hand a player a character to be able to say "think Sam Spade" or "think Atlas" - it gives them some idea of what to work with.
But this can be done without having to worry about stats or levels. Is this session's adventure about getting info out of Sigil's networks of information brokers? Then tell the player to "think Sam Spade". Is it about helping Bane's armies kill Gruumsh? Then tell the player to "think Atlas".
it is hard to imagine a master archer missing a point blank shot at all, much less 5% of the time.
This also goes to the simulationism/anti-simulationism point. In 4e, at least, 1 doesn't mean "I missed". It means "I didn't wear away the target's ability to fight" (ie no hp were inflicted - and sometimes even that's not true, such as for Reaping Strike or Hammer Rhythm).
Maybe the character missed. Maybe s/he hit but didn't pierce the armour. Maybe s/he was on target, but a freak gust of wind blew the arrow out of the way (if the target is an air elemental, the gust of wind probably wasn't a freak one!).
This is part of the difference between 4e's auto-miss rule, and fumble rules in games like RQ or RM - those latter rules really do mean that the character fumbled the shot.
As for a master archer in (for example) an archery competition, a 1 would mean something like a failure to split in half the arrow already lodged in the bullseye.
Ideally we can have our cake and eat it too, right? We can have a game that appeals to as many people as possible yet also is able to focus in on specific styles and different play experiences, all while capitalizing on the strengths and unique qualities of the medium.
No, I honestly don't think we can. the result will, inevitably, in my opinion, be a kludged compromise that pleases neither those seeking one type of game nor those seeking another.
I agree with Balesir here. I used to play Rolemaster - D&D had no interest for me, especially 3E, which has struck me as sort-of wanting to be HERO or RM (grapple rules, skill points) but not quite (hit points, too gonzo). 4e, on the other hand, was attractive precisely because it offered a reasonably coherent vision of a mainstream fantasy RPG that was very different from RM-esque simulationism.
The railroading, you mean (as 2e D&D was pretty much the first RPG that mistook GM fiat for story-gaming)? Pass.
<snip>
D&D4, by contrast, is gamism with a side of nar and a second side of simulationist rules. Gone are the rules that force you to play your character a certain way (barring the "don't be evil" ignorable official rule). Gone is the pretense of the rules dictating every single aspect of reality from when the characters need to sleep to exactly what they do when they cast spells. Instead, the emphasis of the rules is on functional play in and out of combat -- in combat, letting the players act with confidence while still being able to try anything that makes sense; out of combat, letting the players contribute to telling the story they want to tell while continuing to give the GM tools to decide what the odds should be.
Of course, it's not going to scratch the itch of players for whom D&D3 (maybe barring really stupid spells; perhaps E6?) was the perfect system. And it's far from perfect even taking into account its goals; too many pointless feats and powers, all the incoherence regarding weapons/implements, etc. But more, in 4e the rules are supposed to define the ground rules and then let you layer story on top of them, not provide a foundation for story with various roleplaying restrictions and such as in earlier editions -- there's nothing stopping you from playing a 3e style paladin or as a GM making an issue of players deciding not to have their characters sleep for days (heh. Turn it into a skill challenge!) or whatnot. But in 4e, that's not what the rules are for.
Agreed on the issues with 2nd ed AD&D - a game I have zero interest in playing again!
The only gloss I'd add on your description of 4e is that it works pretty smoothly as narrativist first, gamist second (mostly when the battlemap comes out!). I say this from experience. I don't have to tweak anything - just follow the advice on player-initiated quests, wishlists etc and use skill challenges and even combat encounters as the basis for scene framing that is (by D&D standards) fairly hard (though still pretty soft by Forge standards, I think).
