Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6241173" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Oh, I think the default 4e challenge level is, indeed, fairly light. Hence a whole heaping pile of other complaints about 4e. However, as is often pointed out to me, one can just choose to set your default encounter level at Level+2 or Level+4 to crank it up. I can't say I've tried it, but it seems reasonable to me.As to whether its light or heavy gamism, I don't think that actually depends on the level of challenge at all. Certainly other purely gamist (i.e. non-rpg, if we allow ourselves to extend the idea that far) games vary significantly in their difficulty, I don't see that that changes how heavily gamist they are. The relevant factor is that one approaches a unit of play (probably an encounter or adventure in D&D) as a challenge to the players' skill, not the degree to which that challenge is formidable.Yet, even if it did, you could still use the ratings to tell when an encounter would be more difficult or less so. Playing as a tactical vehicle doesn't really tell us much to differentiate between Sim and Nar, I wouldn't think. The idea of playing for/against some kind of challenge rating is very fundamentally a Gamist motivation, AFAICT. The very idea is only marginally (or perhaps tangentially) applicable to Simulationism and almost nonsensical within the context of Narrativism.If, as you suggest, levelling moves you through the various tiers of monsters (rules as suggested), without changing the relative difficulty of the game, then its no different from Mario or Sonic reaching different tiers of levels or "worlds". Yes, the colors change from green to purple and the monsters in 4e change from kobolds to orcs. However, the overall function of the game remains relatively consistent, with only changes in complexity. This may mean that levels don't reflect absolute player skill as much as they may have been intended to in the more ancient editions, but instead better reflect player perserverance. I'd also note that thanks to the ease of Monster math, there's absolutely no reason for the 4e to need to play as you note. You can keep levelling up those kobolds with the party, or level your Demon Princes down.Additionally, I was specifically saying that the presence of levels vis-a-vis challenge ratings and the like, are indicative of a gamist slant in a game as opposed to one without them. Consider what must be prepared to service the different play agendas: for Narrativist play, some sort of dramatically rich conflict/theme must be presented...that whole thesis/antithesis thing. Do those come with challenge ratings? Not in any way I'm aware of. For the Simulationist agenda, you need a consistent (and preferably detailed) world with consistent rules which enforce that reality. In spite of there being "grim" worlds and "gonzo" worlds, I don't see how that necessarily lets us assign challenge levels. So what purpose does that leave for CR, EL, etc? AFAICT, simply to set the difficulty for your players, a gamist concern.As an aside, there is a factor which makes this tougher to suss out. Namely, in D&D the player makes tactical decisions for the character. This kinda conflates whether that difficulty level applies to the characters or the players or both. While gamism would worry about difficulty level for the player, simulationism would recognize it for the character. IME, narrativist games don't really have challenge/difficulty level for either.</blockquote>

Verification