I will never need stats for a Balrog.Stormcrow wrote: I prefer to know why players can't take on an adversary. Is it because it's too strong? Too skilled? To scary? Whatever it is, we should be able to represent it in the rules somehow.
Let's imagine a ludicrous edge-case:
LM: "And behind the door you find... a fly!"
Player: "A giant fly?"
LM: "No, just an ordinary one."
Player: "I swat it and move on."
LM: "You can't swat it: it is the greatest fly ever, and you cannot overcome it."
Player: "Why not? What happens when I swat it?"
LM: "It doesn't matter; it is beyond your ability to defeat."
Player: "But it's just a fly! What's stopping me from swatting it?"
LM: "The fly is more powerful than you're capable of imagining."
Player: "How? What's it doing?"
LM: "It's flying around."
Player: "It's just a regular fly?"
LM: "Yes."
Player: "I grab it and squish it."
LM: "You can't."
Player: "Can I make an Athletics roll?"
LM: "No, you it's beyond you."
Player: "Can I attack it with my sword?"
LM: "No."
A stupid example, yes, but it shows how simply declaring something unbeatable without backing that up can fail. Use the stats to show us why the players will fail when they try to take it on, and always give them the option of taking on something unbeatable.
And it's not because I will narrate circles around my players like the above example.
But I DO run a really deadly game, and will not hesitate to kill characters. (Some others on this board have suggested, perhaps rightfully, that my XP awards are at the very low end.)
So why would I never need stats for a Balrog? Because if my players ever had to face one, I would bet a large sum of money that they would run.
Which is as it should be, as far as I'm concerned.
I mean, hell, the Fellowship ran, and the thing killed Gandalf. That's reason enough.
If I ever have characters that are that powerful, well, then I would have lost interest in the campaign a long time ago.
