Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Professor Phobos" data-source="post: 4034124" data-attributes="member: 18883">But D&D doesn't create a set of world assumptions. You aren't supposed to derive a world from the rules. The rules are just an abstraction. They're built to be a game, not a simulation. I disagree. Superman's invincibility is an in-world element. Superman's plot immunity is a meta element. Likewise, a PC's levels is a meta element. It isn't anything other than a rough approximation of experience and general badassitude in the game world. Hit points are an abstraction. They do not exist in the world, the only exist in the game. This is why Aeris couldn't be raised with a Phoenix Down. The needs of game, story and world are all sometimes contradictory and a balance must be struck between them. Some things are for the game, somethings are meant to simulate some element of the world, and some things are just for cracking good stories. Basically, if you're going to get me to accept that a 20th level fighter can not break his neck, you're going to have to establish some justification for it. Have the Fates blessed him? Has his soul strengthened so much he can subconsciously guide his own destiny as a result of being tempered by struggle after struggle? Something like that.Because as it stands, I don't buy it as something in the world. I treat it as I would treat  Blood Points in Vampire: The Requiem. A simplified abstraction designed to produce a specific gameplay result, not simulate something in the world. I can accept narrative conventions- the 20th level fighter, when he's interacting with the PCs, is important to the story and so probably doesn't check out through some random, arbitrary death.But let's say I'm starting a campaign following the unexpected (but natural), death of a powerful King who had done all sorts of heroic things and the political fallout of his accidental demise. Why shouldn't I say he fell and broke his neck? Because he's 20th level? What does 20th level mean?When he's on screen, it's a relative measure of power. When he's off screen, it means nothing. Absolutely, positively nothing. He has no hit points when off screen. He has no skills. He is nothing more than a bit of the setting. He is no more than a tree, an apple, or a rock. He's a man. A man with certain powers and a certain reputation, but just a man.Now, I'll certainly accept that entities in the game universe should behave reasonably, or at least have justification for their out-of-the-ordinary behavior. Apples should be apples, and if they display unapple-like behavior, I should probably eventually explain it as it being some monster disguised as an apple.So I can understand it if players demand a reasonable expectation for a strange occurrence with regard to, say, our 20th level King. Like if he turns into President Eisenhower and starts talking about Communism. But I don't understand why they'd demand an explanation for why a 20th level fighter died to a 0th level accident, because to me "20th level" is just a provisionally applied abstraction representing how powerful he is as a significant character, not how powerful he is as window dressing. If it makes everyone feel any better, I'll establish the following rule: NPCs lose all their levels when it is no longer important that their capabilities be represented by levels. They get them back if it becomes relevant again.</blockquote>

Verification