Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 4152355" data-attributes="member: 1757">Then it's not worth accusing hong of "misattributing" the Hamlet quote, right? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Probably not a good bet on the crafting rules at minimum, since there's already been discussion at I-Con of stuff like that.And yet this has nothing to do with "consistency" or "simulation" in the game world, but with a philosophy on PC power level. You want PCs to be at pig-farmer power level? Fine. Just drop 'em to 1/3 hp and nerf their powers and skills into oblivion, just like starting 3e PCs using NPC classes. Personally, I don't like that approach, since I prefer my PCs to be like the heroes in pretty much every fantasy novel or film out there; they're either tougher, or stronger, or have a unique talent, or are just really lucky/favored by the plot, than hoi polloi. But it's a flavor thing, not a "level of consistency of simulation" thing.You hit the nail on the head with the OotS reference. The problem is that everything you're bringing up is a metagame issue. You're assuming that the PCs use the same metrics that the players do in interacting with the game world, and worse still, you're also assuming that the PCs/players have the same information available to them about the mechanics of the game that the DM does. This results precisely in the absurd narrative situation that OotS mocks all the time: Players do things that make sense ONLY in the context of the rules and not in any sense that bears a relationship to the setting or the narrative.Three problems with the above: First, players that do this sort of thing (like, say, ask the DM "how could that guy do that? He's got two levels of rogue? What did he have ten years ago, and why don't all his lieutenants also have rogue levels, 'cause he could have taught them!") are being obnoxious, are strongly metagaming, and will be merely encouraged to indulge in this sort of thinking if the ruleset actively supports it. Second, monster stats shouldn't be transparent to players. Period. If there is an actual, in-game reason why a designed monster has a stat that needs to be shown to the players, then the DM *should* intervene to provide the stat, whether or not it's present. As others have mentioned, all RPGs that involve a sufficiently complex world have situations that aren't covered by the rules. Pregnancy is a good one, but there are many, many more.Finally, PCs and NPCs *do* "follow the same rules"; they roll d20s to determine the resolution of actions, they have hp, attacks, defenses, AC, et cetera. The mechanics that determine how those stats are allocated is... well, irrelevant. The guys who are being run by the players happen to use one generation and advancement method; the NPCs use another one. Big deal. They also do different things; the PCs are played by people who show up and earn XP, and the NPCs/monsters just exist in virtual space. So?[EDIT: And really, it is the final paragraph that's what's important. I'm fully aware that players need to know that when their PC hits x wall, it has y impact and can cause z effect; likewise with a player who makes the necessary history/thievery/nature check knowing that a Knight of the Chase/Scarlet Brotherhood assassin/dire bear has p, q, or r power. But the 4e rules have no more problems handling that then the 3e rules did. It's simply the generation mechanic for PCs and NPCs that differs, just like it does for a Bbn2 vs an ogre in 3e, or a 25th-level rogue vs. a gloom. Given that the DM doesn't sit there running virtual encounters and leveling up NPCs by virtue of CR/EL and XP earned, I see no reason why NPCs can't just be created sui generis, so long as players have a reasonable set of expectations to work with.]</blockquote>

Verification