Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4034134" data-attributes="member: 32164">I see. So at least from your perspective (although perhaps not all of the "simulationists"), it's the probabilities that matter, rather than rigid adherence to the rules. So you don't require all 2000 NPC soldiers to actually make a d20 attack roll against the other 2000 soldiers, but you assume that the only events that happen will be possible according to the d20 rule set. So a 15th-level fighter could die if he was hit by 6 arrows, because they might all be max-damage crits from warriors with a 14 strength (30 hp each). As I understand, that's okay with you, because it's unlikely, but possible.On the other hand, the real world scenario where he's killed by a single arrow just can't happen because it can't exceed his MDT, even on a crit, and it certainly can't deplete all of his hit points. So a high-enough level fighter can just laugh if someone points a crossbow at his chest. Because he knows it won't kill him.So the metagame rules actually dictate the ingame reality. A PC can't die from a single arrow, or a single stab wound, because it just can't take away enough of his "hit points." And he has a pretty good idea that he's got hit points, saving throws and things of that nature. They're concrete, measurable things in his world.Personally, I hate that approach, but I suppose I have to admit it's a valid interpretation. But as I said earlier, it's just a little too Order of the Stick silly for me to enjoy it.I start with one basic premise:1) Except where it's obvious (*ahem* magic), the game world operates under the same general physical laws as the real world does.That means people in the game world (not necessarily PCs) can die from any of the same things that people can in the real world. PCs usually don't, but they're more like Batman or Captain America (protected by skill, luck, and plot) than Superman (actually physically incapable of dying of those things).But that's just my preference. And I have to say I'm very glad Fourth Edition seems to be leaning towards my interpretation of things.</blockquote>

Verification