Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7524273" data-attributes="member: 29398">Neither.  I get the point, and disagree with it to such an extent that AFAIC it might as well not exist.The mechanics and the fiction are symbiotically locked together.  For an RPG to be playable one really cannot exist without the other.  The fiction drives the mechanics, and then the mechanics drive the fiction, and then the fiction drives....it's a mobius loop.And within the fiction each creature (including PCs!) has absolute - not relative, but absolute - mechanical values that reflect or back up what the fiction is trying to tell us about it.  A typical Leprechaun is among other things small, not very tough, difficult to find and difficult to hit; and its mechanics and stats reflect that.  A typical Ogre is among other things large, pretty tough compared to a human but not when compared to a Giant, not usually very smart, but knows a bit about hunting and fighting and can bring the pain; and its mechanics reflect and back these things up.Agreed.No I can't, because things that should be mostly constant e.g. hit points, damage per hit, etc. are being wildly changed.So in short, morph the creature to suit the PCs in front of it.Codswallop, I say.  Mechanics are absolute values, not relative.  The only place relativity enters into it is when absolutes are compared.The creature is what it is.  If it's a 47 hit-point ogre when my 1st-level PC meets it and runs screaming it's a 47 hit-point ogre when my PC's 18th-level knight sister meets it.  This ain't rocket science.  The mechanics are reflecting the fiction that this ogre can take a certain amount of punishment before dropping; and that amount doesn't change based on who's giving said punishment out.It occurs to me also that if monsters are morphing to suit the PCs in front of them that's probably contributing to the already-too-steep power curve in 4e: low-level things that could still be a mild threat become basically none at all once minionized; while high-level things that might be handled by a low-level party become impossible once elite-ized.Mechanics in these cases that are simply translating the fiction into something we can play at the table.  They're still locked together.The knight would be, if required, statted up as an 18th level character of its class; using the same generation system as a PC would.  End of story.Or if the whole point of the exercise is actually to bring the party and knight together for whatever reason...Just because there ain't a rule for it doesn't mean it can't happen.  It's simply the flip side of the PCs stumbling on to a combat already in progress.It did that.  But even Sir Lancelot should have to worry about being dogpiled by a gang of Ogres just due to sheer numbers.If the mechanics aren't consistent then the fiction isn't either.  If the fiction isn't consistent then the mechanics aren't either.  They're locked together.It has everything to do with the internal consistency of both the fiction and the game.Let's try another example.  Earlier this evening I watched a hockey game, Montreal beat Vancouver 3-2.  Shortly after this another game was played which I didn't watch; I later learned Calgary beat Edmonton 4-2 in that one.  It's quite reasonable for me to assume that the mechanics and rules used in the Calgary game that I didn't watch were basically the same as in the Vancouver game that I did watch, right?Now let's make that two battles in a game world.  In the one our PCs are in and that we played through we beat a group of six ogres without losing any characters.  Shortly after this another battle was fought elsewhere that we weren't involved in; we later learned another adventuring party lost a character while also beating six ogres.  It's quite reasonable to assume the mechanics used in that battle that we didn't play through would be basically the same - had it been played through - as those used in the battle that we did play through, right?Its "real" hit point total is the only one that matters.  The fiction wants to tell me that this ogre is likely tougher than a bear but less tough than a giant, and to reflect this the mechanics give me a range of possible hit point totals - i.e. the range of results I can get by rolling its hit dice and adding its con bonus - it can have.  Once I've determined that number by whatever means, I know its actual toughness relative not only to the average bear and average giant but to all the other ogres in its pack (for whom I've also determined h.p. values) and to the PCs - of any level! - that might fight it later.Lan-"tougher than the average bear"-efan</blockquote>

Verification