Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imban" data-source="post: 4017991" data-attributes="member: 29206">I'm personally pretty hard Simulationist, with Gamism coming in a very, very close second, and Narrativism not even being something I consider. Essentially, I try to run, and prefer to play in, games of heroes going around and being awesome and having fair and fun combats in a logical and consistent world. As such, I definitely consider a stat block the definition of a creature, but I very want them to (more or less) turn out a fun game. Pretty much everything you mentioned is pretty easy to get me to accept, though - and equally easy to make stupid enough that I can't.How a Pit Fiend sets up fortifications doesn't really bother me - they've got all the basic abilities of real-life humans and then a ton, so they just build a fortress or get their slaves to do it for them. Now, a Beholder with a constructed lair? That needs a bit more interesting explanation that addresses the "how"s, considering a Beholder has no useful appendages.How a Pit Fiend survives in the Nine Hells currently doesn't bother me that much either. So, they don't have Fast Healing... but they're still miles ahead of human politicians and celebrities in their ability to ward off assassination attempts, even when injured, simply because they can summon monsters and shrug off a ballista bolt to the face. However, it's still something I'd consider - if the fluff states or heavily implies that only a monster or NPC's vast personal power keeps it from getting whooped on the spot and the combat stats state that it has no such vast personal power, I have trouble buying it.How they weave their intrigue? Well, as written they're superhumanly good at weaving intrigue in purely mortal manners and can kick ass when it comes down to it. And hey, if that wasn't enough, they can also grant Wishes once a century - the potential for corrupting people is obvious there. Because I work based on the stat block and the hard rules as a definition of the creature, however, it'd jar me to see a Pit Fiend using non-combat abilities that are never ascribed to them on the whims of an adventure designer or DM - you can raise a lot of Cain with a +22 Diplomacy, +27 Bluff, and +27 Intimidate, but you can't possess and speak through a bald seven-year-old with eyes of deep red flames. (As an aside, it's certainly possible for a DM or adventure designer to assign a specific monster an ability distinct from the racial standard. Sometimes this is cool to me, sometimes it comes off as "...yeah well this one can!" I honestly can't tell you what the dividing line is, save that I know it as soon as I see it.)One of things that does get me, especially since 3e was terrible about this, is when fluff and stats are drastic mismatches. Even taking into account the point of view that only combat statistics are necessary, combat statistics say a lot about a being's place in the world. If Asmodeus is a level 28 solo monster and he rules unquestionably over dozens of level-36 to level-43 solo monsters that could each individually kill him in a split second, consistency's gone pretty irrevocably out the window.As an aside, the ring thing really doesn't bother me from a simulationist point of view at all. It quite probably makes some balance sense (of course, it might not at all) and is easy enough to explain in a consistent and logical fashion. It does bother me greatly, but that's because I don't view D&D as a vehicle solely for presenting "D&D fantasy." If I'm running a game inspired by whatever the heck else - let's say Diablo II, for fun - I don't want the system imposing upon me that I can't improve or debilitate ability scores in any way or that people wearing two rings from level 1 are verboten or that only weapons, armors, and cloaks/pendants can have solid numerical benefits.</blockquote>

Verification