Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 4017727" data-attributes="member: 12037">Interesting. By most of these definitions I fall mostly into a Narrativist mindset, as it seems Narrativist fits best with a DMing style that puts creating an entertaining game above all other factors. But, see we go back to the style thing. It's not arbitrary from a gamist perspective. Everyone pays so much attention to the 11th level get one ring thing they notice the, probably more important, 21st level get two rings. This means you can give a 15th level party of six PCs 10 rings and it is no more of a power increase than giving them 6. This is probably a very important balancing factor for Rings. It means they don't have to worry about mixing and matching rings until the Epic tier, when things like that might not be as much of a problem because of the Epic power scale.Then there's the slot increases over time to scale power. I can't remember how many slots PCs have, but they'll have X slots at Heroic, X+1 slots at Paragon, and X+2 slots at Epic, another possible balancing factor. Heck, the whole +1 slot might have even been thought up as a "reward" of sorts for achieving Paragon.So, its all about one one approaches the rules that determine if one sees them as arbitrary, or good, or bad, or pointless, or smart, or sexy, or whatever. A Gamist probably won't give an explanation much inspection before accepting it. "Oh, I'm not strong enough to call out the true power of the ring yet? I'll try again later." And that's that.We're seeing the exact same thing with the Pit Fiend, by the way. Simulationists want to know how the Pit Fiend survives in the Nine Hells, how they weave their intrigue, how they can set up their fortifications, and all that good stuff. Because it isn't in the description/stat block, by their play style, the stat block is a definition for the creature. I think this is yet another clash between the Simulationist approach and, in this case according to definitions in this thread, a Narritivist approach. Actually, I think a whole lot of these arguments could break down into this very topic itself.It's not good or bad, but it obviously clashes with a lot of people's preferred play style.</blockquote>

Verification