Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6655990" data-attributes="member: 6775031">As I said, NPCs used PC rules to determine their abilities, except in situations where the in-game reality diverged. An orcish shaman might not have the same spell access as a PC priest, but only in as much as a shaman is actually different from a priest within the world. As I said, the game mechanics reflect the in-game reality. Ogres could have better AC by wearing better armor, because that's how armor works within the world, as confirmed by the rules for when a PC wears armor.Until 4E came around, it wasn't something worth talking about, because it was just one of those obvious things that didn't need to be said. It wasn't a particular principle of D&D, because it was such a fundamental assumption of all RPGs that there was never any reason to question it. Kind of like how gravity affects everything, all the time, and you don't usually need to mention it unless it changes suddenly.Hit Points don't exist, but the realities of the game world which are reflected in the Hit Point mechanic do exist, objectively. It is objectively true that a given character possesses certain characteristics of luck, skill, toughness, and whatever else. It is a true fact of the game world that it takes an average of X number of 'hits' from Y weapon before a given character will be unable to continue fighting, for whatever definition of 'hit' you choose to employ. Or to use a less abstract example, it is a true fact of the world that some people can survive a fall from any height without dying. Hit Points reflect a real, objectively measurable phenomenon.Definitions are useful in as far as they allow meaningful discussion and inform decision-making. I consider the objective reality - the consistent-stat-representation-requirement - to be such a fundamental rule of RPGs that I would not consider games which violate that rule to still be in the same category of game. If someone refers to something as an RPG, then that word carries a lot of meaning to me, and I would be disappointed to later find out that it was this other thing - that it didn't follow the basic rules for what makes an RPG.You can shift definitions around in any way that promotes decision-making and allows for discussion. Some people don't consider StarCraft or Magic to be real sports. Some people don't consider RPGs to be real games. By sticking with my definition, I'm trying to draw awareness to this phenomenon, and to get people to understand just how big of a deal it actually is. This is a huge deal. It's not something that should be changed without significant consideration. Breaking this rule will turn away a significant portion of the player base.</blockquote>

Verification