Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6241001" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Marshall, I think you may have inferred a negative tone to my post that I was trying to avoid. I see 4e as very playable in a very gamist mode, but I don't see that as a bad thing at all!ermm....yes?<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> That's kinda my point.ermm....yes?<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> The 4e rules (at least the copy I have) strongly advise the DM to keep your PCs on that treadmill (although not in those terms, and I'll allow that later 4e publications may have amended that). Even to the point of simply "leveling up" or rewriting adversaries at higher level (the big advantage of that whole enemies are not PCs thing, IMO.) As you note, those 5% increments are (generally) applied to the foes as well. Mario just skips the treadmill math part. My only personal objection to the treadmill is that its a lot of math for little gain. Someone around hear suggested just skipping the 5% increments for leveling and just use HP to determine level...that seems a whole lot simpler to me.I'm not sure "Class" is a gamist conceit, but level certainly is...at least as D&D usually has it.I would disagree that its the only way to make levels meaningful. Even in the older editions, where levels came with different XP values, etc. gaining a level is usually a meaningful thing mechanically. The other things you mention are (to my mind) significant "value-added" propositions for keeping levels relatively balanced amongst the classes, but certainly not a requisite for meaning.I think within the context of trying to evaluate rulesets in GNS terms (something which is a no-no, but often indulged in), saying that game X has levels, challenge ratings, or difficulty levels of the type which we are discussing is fairly indicative that game X probably is somewhat gamist, at least in comparison to a game without those things.Whoa there! All games are Sim games!?! I know some Simulationist die-hards who would argue harshly against that point. (Although, I honestly think the Simulationist Definition is somewhat weak and people seem to be stretching it nowadays. So for some definitions that might work.)However, players knowing the challenge ratings of foes and the like would be against Simulationist play agendas, I would think. At best, the idea that all possible encounters can be numerically rated is Simulationist-neutral.</blockquote>

Verification