In typical RPGing, there are two main ways to work out
what happens next. One is for the GM to just tell the table. The other is for the players to declare actions for their PCs, and for those actions to be resolved using the game rules.
I understand
@Tantavalist to be assuming that the second method would be used, and - in my view correctly - observing that
if it is, then in standard D&D there is no prospect of high-level and maybe even mid-level PCs being defeated by ordinary people, assuming those people are statted up in a way that is commensurate with their established place in the fiction (which includes
needing the PCs to help them with their problems).
I can easily imagine a D&D game where the players agree to play their PCs like Superman - ie they agree not to use their powers to disregard or even overthrow the existing social order.
But if the players try to have their PCs do that sort of thing - and it's a fairly obvious fantasy fiction trope (REH's Conan does it by conquering Aquilonia, kidnapping the ruler of Vendhya, etc) - then when we move to the resolution of those declared actions I think Tantavalist is right. I don't see how an abstract notion of
fiction before rules is going to do any work. Unless you're proposing that the GM should just ignore those action declarations or declare by fiat that they fail.
One of the points I was trying to convey, but I'll try to make more explicit here: The rules of RPG games are rarely (probably can-never-be) comprehensive. The vast majority of actions that occur in an RPG game aren't explicitly defined in a rulebook somewhere, but are adjudicated by the social contract of players based on the shared understanding of the game world.
D&D game rules largely revolve around "combat," and not just "combat" broadly, but a narrow style & resolution of combat.
Oftentimes there are specific rules for other styles & resolutions of combat. For example, grappling often has different rules than "normal" combat. Occasionally you see specific rules for 1-on-1 duels, mounted combat, large-scale battles, naval engagements, etc. These styles & resolution tend to be handled very poorly by the rules that D&D is typically designed for.
The argument being made is that because the D&D combat system works a certain way, that this should therefore dictate the rules of how narrative works in other respects.
To bring this around to your example, Conan might be represented in a D&D rules system by a mid-to-high level Barbarian. If he wins gambling one night and is awakened by a grudge-holding guard with a dagger at his throat, he can disregard it per the metagame knowledge that low level guards are never going to pose a significant threat to him.
Discussions about HP and description of wounds are an almost archetypal example of divergence between rules and narrative. In D&D you might describe someone as getting their "throat cut by a dagger." Yikes! That's a vicious attack. But, barring specific types of class & level dependent abilities this would deal insignificant amount of HP damage to a sufficiently leveled character.
Should we extrapolate from the
mechanics that this isn't a dangerous injury? In most groups, I hope, the consistency of the
narrative outweighs the poor, low-resolution mechanics. D&D's HP system isn't
designed to represent getting your throat cut. Just because the game system has poor rules for this doesn't mean we must throw out our intuitive understanding of what getting your throat cut means.
There are countless other examples to illustrate the same point. Mechanics of games are an imperfect tool, and should only be used to drive the types of stories that you & your players want to tell. For myself, I have no problem creating "Level 15" Guards if this is what it takes to create a compelling conflict in a game and a consistent narrative, even if this might seem absurd from a specific
metagame / mechanics perspective.
The big picture is asking: What poses a more substantial issue for my game? Assigning "too-high" numerical values & mechanics for NPCs, or assuming that we can only tell narratives that align with the implicit logic of the rules system?
I understand
@Tantavalist to be assuming that the second method would be used, and - in my view correctly - observing that
if it is, then in standard D&D there is no prospect of high-level and maybe even mid-level PCs being defeated by ordinary people, assuming those people are statted up in a way that is commensurate with their established place in the fiction (which includes
needing the PCs to help them with their problems).
Even though I feel this is a non-sequitur to my broader point I wanted specifically to respond to this since I think this is the crux of the argument being put forth, but it's actually quite clearly untrue on multiple levels.
In the real world people hire others to do work that they could do themselves all the time. I am certain that I am technically capable of fixing a roof, for example, and I am certain I would do a better job of it than most contractors. However, my risk tolerance for climbing up onto high places is much lower.
There are a lot of reasons that a local authority might hire a group of 'adventurers' to do a particular task that have nothing to do with them mechanically having the highest +bonuses
. While undoubtedly most D&D style games want to create a feeling of heroism and special import to player characters the conceit of being
literally the best <InsertClass> in the game world is unnecessary and, when driven by low-resolution rules systems, reductive.
Simultaneously the argument is that higher-level PCs can't be threatened by fiction-appropriately statted-NPCs. At least in the editions of D&D I'm familiar with, that's not true at all. In fact, due to how Action Economy & d20+Criticals work, it can be quite dangerous to run into a large number of relatively weak opponents. Particularly if you (as GM) were to play such characters intelligently, using tactics that are used to bring in dangerous outlaws, as well as systems like the aforementioned
Heat to represent ways in which running afoul of the law makes life more difficult.
