Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules

[S'mon]

Er...shouldn't the "well-known-ness" of a given critter be based mostly on its commonality within the particular game world/region being played, rather than what book it's in?

Yes, both commonality and legendary renown. Banderhobs might be a common nursery tale in one world, for instance.

But I typically use the books as short-hand for commonality; IMCs PHB 1 magic items are the most common ones, for instance, whereas AV items are much rarer. Likewise most of the monsters in MM1 & MV are more common than most of those in MM2 & MM3. There are of course exceptions; Jackalweres (MM3) are common in the local area in one of my campaigns.

 

[Mark CMG]

Ideally (and unfortunately it's not like that in D&D), I'd like to see a direct correlation between size and hit point/damage for normal physical creatures. Bigger massive monsters are more dangerous, period.

There's a post by [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] in another thread linking to an image that seems right up your alley here - http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...st-told-me-he-fudges-rolls-4.html#post5745558

 

[pemerton]

I'm thinking of wushu/kung-fu movies where you see a very average looking robed Jet Li walking thru the street and you couldn't distinguish him from anybody else. But then when you see him fight, it leaves you in awe.

Have you seen New Legend of Shaolin? The first scene with Jet Li has him walking into town with his son standing on one leg on his shoulder while holding a parasol over the two of them. Jet Li says "Now, we must make sure that no one knows we're kung fu masters." And the audience is thinking "Too late! I think they already worked it out."

I can't remember much else about the movie except the villain is the poison (scorpion?) man, and the plot involves a kid with a map tatooed on his back.

 

[LurkAway]

Have you seen New Legend of Shaolin? The first scene with Jet Li has him walking into town with his son standing on one leg on his shoulder while holding a parasol over the two of them. Jet Li says "Now, we must make sure that no one knows we're kung fu masters." And the audience is thinking "Too late! I think they already worked it out."

No, I can't recall that one... Couldn't they pretend to be acrobats?

I'll rephrase then. NPCs of average wisdom trying to blend in with normal folk should be doable.

Walking around in rune-inscribed dragonscale armor is a bit of a giveaway. Monks should have a clear advantage in this department until they start breakdancing or doing stunts like Two-Person-Tower-Under-Umbrella.

Mistakes can still happen though. An ancient sword hidden beneath a cloak is accidentally revealed by a sudden incoming wind. A drunk college-kid wizard accidentally reveal his powers when he uses Burning Hands to light an outcoming...

 

[Balesir]

For easy 'stereotyping', I'd like to see goblins that are goblins. No 1st level goblin and 20th level epic goblins. If a goblin is more powerful, there are visual cues (plate armor, musculature, unusal size, goblin chief surrounded by guards, etc.) If monsters are classifiable that way, monsters by tier can be threat-classified simply by reputation.

I actually think 4E D&D has an additional, excellent facility for dealing with this "power divide" - albeit a somewhat "anti-process-simulation" one.

If I take a 10th level 'standard' monster in 4E, I can through quite a simple transformation represent it as a 1st level Solo monster, with similar powers but with different attributes (defences, attack bonuses - more attacks but with lower damage, and so on) - and worth the same amount of experience if overcome. I can do exactly the same to "recreate" the same creature as a 6th level Elite monster - or as an 18th level Minion.

I am not suggesting, here, that these are, in the game world, different monsters - they are the the same creature(s), but represented to interact with different characters. The result is a more interesting and fun experience at each encounter; a party of 5th level characters might be capable of overcoming a 10th level monster, but fighting a 6th level elite is likely to be a much less frustrating experience.

That is not to say it will be any easier - but attacks will hit more frequently (doing proportionately less damage) and damage done to the characters will be somewhat more controllable - will arrive in smaller aliquots. Furthermore, the hit chances will fall into the range where tactical ruses to gain or prevent advantage will have some real effect on the outcome, rather than changing a "hit on a natural 20" to a "hit only on a 20, but it's a critical if you hit", or changing an "almost certain to be hit" into a "still almost certain to be hit - but maybe a tiny bit less likely than before".

This is not "full scope simulationism", by any means, but it is at least a useful mechanism to permit some "mingling" of power levels, provided you are prepared to treat the rules systems as a tool for adjudicating the effects of the characters' interactions with the world, rather than as a model for the "physics" of the world itself.

It's a hard old trope to let go of, but it offers considerable advantages to do so.

 

[BryonD]

4e is designed, rougly, to determine fictional outcomes via its mechanics, but to permit a much looser fit between fictional and mechanical process. In some mechanics (eg skill challenges) it expressly confers authority on who gets to narrate the fictional process (a GM, in the case of a skill challenge). In others, it leaves it open how the table arrives at a shared account of events in the fictin (eg Come and Get It). (The technical term for this sort of action resolution is fortune-in-the-middle.) The mechanics are also designed to generate a certain dynamic, and (in my view, at least) the integration of mechanical and story elements also strongly suppots generating strong thematics (provided one is looking to play within a reasonably conventional range of fantasy tropes and themes).

I don't see this as really contradicting my position.

I'll readily admit that RPGs by their very nature are open to group by group adaptation. So I'd never begin to suggest that you are not absolutely describing how 4E works for you. But based on the bulk of my conversations with a variety of 4E fans, plus reading numerous commentaries from WotC folks, I still see what I said as being a very accurate description of the game and your comments as simply an adaptation of that.

And in the end your shared narrative is still built by looking at the mechanics to see what result you need to create a story to justify.