Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4738899" data-attributes="member: 30001">There's never been a version of DnD that I'm aware of that hasn't scaled the level of monsters to the PCs.&nbsp; Earlier editions were less methodical about it, but even in the 1E days it would be unusual for a 10th level party to fight encounter after encounter with a handful of orcs just because the wandering tables said so.&nbsp;Basically, I think the treasure parcel thing and encounter scaling is a bit of a gray area.&nbsp; I would call myself a simulationist and yet I don't think these conventions are inconsistent.&nbsp; After all, it depends (as has been said) on what you're simulating.&nbsp; &nbsp;By your reasoning, the character generating process would indicate that no one in the world starts off life a child, serf, or without an 18 in some attribute.&nbsp; If you make the assumption that the PCs are heroes, there's nothing IMO that's inconsistent with simulationism that means the PCs have to play by the same rules as the NPCs.&nbsp; &nbsp;I choose to tell my PCs that the game is going to play out along certain lines.&nbsp; For reason of inexplicable fortune or whatever, they are playing a character of a race/class/stats of their own choosing.&nbsp; If I wanted to use treasure parcels (and I don't) I would explain them as being a result of fate.&nbsp; Other people don't find treasure parcels.&nbsp; Other people aren't lucky enough to almost always encounter monsters suitable to their level.&nbsp; That's just fate.&nbsp; &nbsp;My DnD game is choosing to tell the story of heroes with a plausible chance of survival who have the opportunity to do interesting things.&nbsp; In the old days of DnD IME, people would roll up characters using the 3d6 method.&nbsp; A bad result would mean you either crumpled up your character sheet, or had your character kill himself off, depending on whether the DM wanted to face the music or not.&nbsp; &nbsp;So fate is just a way of saving yourself from having to play through a bunch of uninteresting existences until you get to one that entertains you.&nbsp;The game is taking place within a certain set of possibilities - the story line/fate/what-have-you precludes that you start off life as a serf, or that a meteor comes down from the sky and destroys your entire kingdom on the first day of your adventure.&nbsp; These things are possible in reality of course, but I think it's reasonable that the game of DnD select, from all possible fates, the ones that are interesting and heroic for the players to explore.&nbsp; Otherwise your character could just be stuck with feudal obligations and having to farm for the rest of his life.&nbsp; And how good of a game is that?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 4738899, member: 30001"] There's never been a version of DnD that I'm aware of that hasn't scaled the level of monsters to the PCs. Earlier editions were less methodical about it, but even in the 1E days it would be unusual for a 10th level party to fight encounter after encounter with a handful of orcs just because the wandering tables said so. Basically, I think the treasure parcel thing and encounter scaling is a bit of a gray area. I would call myself a simulationist and yet I don't think these conventions are inconsistent. After all, it depends (as has been said) on what you're simulating. By your reasoning, the character generating process would indicate that no one in the world starts off life a child, serf, or without an 18 in some attribute. If you make the assumption that the PCs are heroes, there's nothing IMO that's inconsistent with simulationism that means the PCs have to play by the same rules as the NPCs. I choose to tell my PCs that the game is going to play out along certain lines. For reason of inexplicable fortune or whatever, they are playing a character of a race/class/stats of their own choosing. If I wanted to use treasure parcels (and I don't) I would explain them as being a result of fate. Other people don't find treasure parcels. Other people aren't lucky enough to almost always encounter monsters suitable to their level. That's just fate. My DnD game is choosing to tell the story of heroes with a plausible chance of survival who have the opportunity to do interesting things. In the old days of DnD IME, people would roll up characters using the 3d6 method. A bad result would mean you either crumpled up your character sheet, or had your character kill himself off, depending on whether the DM wanted to face the music or not. So fate is just a way of saving yourself from having to play through a bunch of uninteresting existences until you get to one that entertains you. The game is taking place within a certain set of possibilities - the story line/fate/what-have-you precludes that you start off life as a serf, or that a meteor comes down from the sky and destroys your entire kingdom on the first day of your adventure. These things are possible in reality of course, but I think it's reasonable that the game of DnD select, from all possible fates, the ones that are interesting and heroic for the players to explore. Otherwise your character could just be stuck with feudal obligations and having to farm for the rest of his life. And how good of a game is that? [/QUOTE]

Verification