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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8273557" data-attributes="member: 82106">Hmmm, yeah. There are of course two sorts of reactions that go with two different conceptualizations of where game process/mechanics should apply.The more 'Gygaxian' question would be to ask how 4e mechanically produced this result because, certainly at low levels, that seems pretty odd. An 'Orc Raider' is a basic level 3 orc, something PCs might take on pretty often, and typical of humanoids. It has a DEX of 15 and a (+3) DEX bonus. +1 of this is basically a level bonus, and +2 is for the DEX itself, though not all monsters actually balance out 'by the math' and we have to imagine they might have 'racial bonuses' or something, though the designers may not have actually bothered to think past "I want this number" and no actual 4e rule states that monster numbers have to 'add up' (Monster builder would supply such numbers by default, but you could override them). So, wouldn't an Orc raider get a +3 to some sort of skill check to do something like that, if it was DEX based? His Handaxe attack power is '+7 vs AC', which is pretty similar to numbers PCs would likely have (a level 3 fighter is likely to have between +7 and +10, so this orc is not stupid accurate with a thrown weapon, but not terrible either). Now, at Paragon or against some other monsters, and taking other skills into account, I would be surprised if a group of monsters performed at the level of the best PCs. Probably closer to average or below average MOST of the time, which seems about right, the PCs are the shnizzle.The more 'Indie' response would be that numbers are created to be consistent with the fiction and produce an interesting story, so the monsters should have a probability of success which is in keeping with what will produce a tense situation. If it goes badly for the PCs, maybe their car goes crashing down. Maybe they manage to cling to the cables, or some bogies, or something and now they're just in a worse situation, or maybe they go crashing down as well and we enter some new phase of the adventure where they hit bottom and enter a new 'world of hurt'. If it goes well, then the monsters plunge into the abyss and exit stage right. Practically speaking I don't think that monsters should even be making checks, certainly not in this kind of situation. Simply provide a countdown "the orcs will sever your cable in 5 shots unless you stop them." Maybe it would be presented dramatically as just the ropes above snapping and sagging more each round. Now it is up to the PCs to act quickly.The later is all narrativist DW-style or 4e style (if you make it an SC) kind of stuff. In my own game design I have eliminated ALL non-player dice, completely. So mechanically it is a good bit more like 4e than DW, but in terms of process you only have players roll dice. If a monster attacks you, you pick a defense and make a check. If you are in a contest with one, you pass checks to overcome its moves and fail if you cannot achieve enough successes within the bounds of the fictional situation (generally before 3 failures, but there is some flexibility there). Obviously Fail Forward is strictly implied in these kinds of process, though it isn't impossible to have a "this story ends here." sort of result.</blockquote>

Verification