Community

May 1, 2012 -- 5:50AM, Mablok wrote:

@Abdul, @Tony_Vargas
I meant encounter level.   I would surmise that no encounter level + 4 challenge could take my group in a plain vanilla fight.   It wouldn't be in doubt.  I do think a DM could construct some situational advantages that might help the game.   This is the DM fixing it issue though which 4e people are constantly decrying 3e people for.   It's fine to have interesting terrain or unusual circumstances sometimes.  Not every time.  It doesn't make sense.  Sometimes you really do just come upon monsters in the open.

@Tony_Vargas
Sorry I was unclear.  I'm talking about encounter levels that get far beyond anything recommended in the DMG in an effort to create challenge.   


@MeCorva
I would say that some people would say those people enjoying Pathfinder right now are enjoying an imbalanced game.  I might even agree that it is more imbalanced than 4e.  

I agree most people want balance.  I don't agree that it is equally important to all play styles.   A simulationist is likely less focused on that one thing than say a gamist.   

Heh, you haven't played in my game. I have very little need of leveling up challenges to any extreme degree. If you think you're going to curb-stomp my level + 4 challenge, bring it on, lol. There is no such thing as a "plain vanilla fight". Any DM who is resorting to absurd overleveling of encounters is missing the boat. Read the encounter design sections of DMG1 and DMG2...

Running into some monsters "in the open" is of course possible. There are several scenarios. If it is just some bog-standard wandering orcs or something then what is the point of a hard encounter? Make it an easy quick level-1 job with a bunch of minions or a skill challenge or something. It is simply not a worthwhile encounter. OTOH lack of terrain IS terrain itself and in any case there's no such thing on Earth as "empty terrain". If I have a nice Blue Dragon wander by while you're out in some hypothetical billiard-ball world flat plain you're hosed. I don't care if its a level -4 encounter, you're outranged and there's no way you can fix it, prepare to die. OK, that would be boring, but again why would you create such a completely vacuous encounter and insist on making it combat? Misusing the game isn't something you can criticize the game for.

Pathfinder is a different game, and it has its own (rather serious IMHO) problems. No game is perfect. The question is are you identifying the right elements to change in order to make a better game? IMHO this fetish with imbalance is misguided.

May 1, 2012 -- 5:50AM, Mablok wrote:

I meant encounter level.   I would surmise that no encounter level + 4 challenge could take my group in a plain vanilla fight.

What level? I'm pretty sure I can create a broken* set of critters that will challenge any group of PCs, though my familiarity with epic level is poor.

_{*4e xp values are more indicative of real difficulty than 3e CR, but they're hardly perfect.}

May 1, 2012 -- 5:50AM, Mablok wrote:

I agree most people want balance.  I don't agree that it is equally important to all play styles.   A simulationist is likely less focused on that one thing than say a gamist.   

Balance is important to getting multiple play styles or player preferences to work together, though, which is something D&D Next is trying to do.

I've picked up some buzzwords here, too.  Here it goes:

As to "simulationist" vs "gamist."  D&D is certainly a game.  Is it a simulation?  If so, what is it simulating?  Heroic fantasy?  But heroic fantasy isn't history, it's fiction, where the narrative takes precedence.  That would make D&D "narrativist" rather than "simulationist?"   Or has D&D grown beyond the genre to define it's own sub-genre of fantasy?  In that case, D&D is simulating its self, or it's prior incarnations, which were games.  Doesn't that make it "gamist."

 Maybe I got those current buzzwords wrong, I'll try again in my own words.

I came to D&D through wargames or it came to me, since I was playing wargames before D&D existed.  In an historical wargame, you have a very relevant question of realism.  You have the historical period, perhaps even a specific battle, that really happened, and your game, in trying to be a fair, enjoyable game playable in a reasonable period of time with a few guys, some lead, and a sandtable, may have to compromise some on historical accuracy.  So I get realism.

Maybe this means I still don't get D&D, but D&D is a game, its still a lot like a miniatures wargame, but it's not set in an historical period, and it has blatantly unreal aspects to it.  There's no history to be inaccurate, realism isn't an issue.  It can just focus on being a good game.  

Now, I do think it would be something if D&D went back to being more like Chainmail, with a set of realistic historical rules for the middle ages, and the option of adding in fantastic elements, or going all the way to heroic fantasy or traditional D&D dungeon-plundering.