4e / GSL Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[jgbrowning]

Originally Posted by ST

I'm not interesting in creating a game where my players will go "Oh, man, I just like to sit back and think about what it'd be like to be in that world." I want one where my players go "Oh man, when are we playing again?"

Perhaps I didn't state my point clearly enough, but I believe the main reason why someone goes "Oh man, when are we playing again?" in response to a particular game (as opposed to just playing any game to hang out and have fun with friends) is because of what exists in their mind when away from the table, because they don't want to do what happened last session all over again, they want to do something different, something that they are imagining could happen. This desire to play does not come from the table, it comes from the imagining of what they could do in addition to what they have already done.

And I think that the "game" that exists in their mind is very important when determining the power of a particular role-playing game. The more people who are, to use your term, prepping for a game, the more powerful the game is because it has more sticking power in the minds of the players. As a game designer, I must focus heavily upon getting the world and the possibilities of the world to stick in peoples head when they are not at the table because that will bring them to the table to play my game, not just any game.

So when I say, "not-playing ,but thinking about it" play this is what I mean. Without this imagining of what you could do next session, a game dies.

From my perspective, it sounds like the "not-playing, but thinking about it" parts are more important in your approach than the parts with people, together, at the table. I have not in the past found play that resulted from such methods to be satisfactory to me.

It is more important if you want to get people to keep playing your game. Having fun at the table is very dependent upon the people you're playing with, but the desire to play a particular game at the table is independent of other people, and it is what keeps a game alive. The desire to play a particular system will keep people trying to find a table for that game.

I think the "thinking about it" part is what drives people to particular systems and games, while "at the table" is what drives people to roleplaying in general. I think "thinking about it" is the more important aspect when figuring out why individuals prefer one game over another, be that because the mechanics are helping making the table top experience more fun, or in some cases, even when the mechanics make it harder. It's not hard to find people who say, "I love game X, even though it's system is wonky."

So yeah, pretty much we just have a fundamental difference in approach as to the entire purpose of the hobby, no biggie.

It is possible. I think I just think of "prep" and "thinking about the game" as an integral part of the gaming experience while you don't. But as you say, it's no biggie. In the end, it just may seem semantic.

joe b.

[ST]

Don't sweat it; we're just talking past each other at this point.

Very little of my personal experience with prep is about the world anyway; for my games, setting is a source of situation and color, and NPCs with their own goals that'll contend against the PC's goals. That kind of stuff is a different style of prep, but it's definately still prep.

I've also only had two players in my group at any time in the last five years that particularly cared about the exact, precise description of setting apart from what was relevant to a given scene. And I don't really care about it either. That didn't hurt the game or make it less evocative, because the stuff I was relegating to Color was stuff that nobody at the table was particularly interested in. That doesn't mean there weren't lots of other things at the table we were intensely interested in.

[BryonD]

Originally Posted by jgbrowning

IMO, there's nothing wrong with anyone's preferences in role-playing. To me it's like one person liking pepperoni pizza and someone else disliking it while liking mushroom and onion pizza. Arguing which is better is kinda like arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Now, discussing if certain mechanics do what they're designed to do and if there are unintended consequences is a bit more interesting. That's game design, and learning how to make things work for my version of better is always cool with me.

joe b.

Just to be clear, I'm agreeing with you completely.

I just get amused when I'm the mushroom and onion guy and I'm being told that pepperoni is just as good a vegetarian pizza.

[ST]

One more point:

Originally Posted by jgbrowning

It is more important if you want to get people to keep playing your game. Having fun at the table is very dependent upon the people you're playing with, but the desire to play a particular game at the table is independent of other people, and it is what keeps a game alive. The desire to play a particular system will keep people trying to find a table for that game.

I can see why you feel this way as a game designer, but this particular advice is about getting people to use your product, as opposed to what they do during play. It was a very popular model in the 90's, say with Vampire's metaplot-heavy supplements, and much has been written on the disconnect between thinking about play and actual play in that context. I do find it interesting that there aren't any major publishers who find it economically viable these days.

To put it another way: I don't care about keeping a particular system or ruleset or setting alive. I care about, when I host a group of people to play, that we all have a good time and are creatively invested in what's going on. That's my only interest, so the other issues don't factor into it for me.

[MrMyth]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

AFAICT, the butterfly can do 0 hp damage, and the effect be the same in 4e.

"A minion is destroyed when it takes any amount of damage."

I'm not entirely sure how to read that statement as implying that 0 damage butterflies can kill minions.

You are apparently under the impression that if a party consists of 4 PCs and 2 NPCs, the NPCs cannot kill minions the way that the PCs can. I am curious as to where I can find this in the RAW.

Is it a combat encounter? Has the DM statted out NPCs that are explicitly designed to be relevant to the combat? Then yes, they can certainly kill minions, if he is essentially treating them as backup characters.

But determining whether a tribe of Ogres can threaten a village - that doesn't require rolling out an explicit combat that doesn't involve the PCs, that takes place off-screen, and which is motivated by the DMs story to begin with.

The minion rules are there for combat relevant purposes. Generally, that means the PCs. If the DM really decides something else is combat relevant to the minions, sure, he can use them then. If he does so in the fashion you are describing - deciding that a butterfly needs to be combat relevant to an Ogre minion, he is making a bad judgement call, and one that goes against the intent of the minion rules to begin with.

You seem to be advocating using common sense to interpret rules. I have a thread I'd like to see you make that claim in.

And yet, I'm making it in this thread, since this is the one where you are making arguments based on misinterpretations of the rules and spontaneously invented fake rules. But yes, some common sense is coming into play. The fact it is backed up by the intent and direct instruction of the 4E designers certainly helps, though.

The PCs are fighting the ogres while the NPC farmers throw rocks. According to RAW, what happens to the ogres?

Why are the NPC farmers there? Do you, as a DM, intend for them to be a threat to the Ogres? If so, you can assign them stats capable of killing the Ogres. If you desire them to instead only be able to hinder the Ogres, you can probably treat them more as some sort of terrain or obstacle that only hinders the Ogres. If you simply have a bunch of level 1 commoners and roll for 20s to kill minions, I suggest you are ignoring the explicit instruction and intent of the minion rules.

They sure did, but the DM was also admonished to use common sense when determining what an effective attack was. Indeed, pre-WotC-D&D, rules were intended as guidelines to aid the DM in making reasonable rulings.

If the rules suggest wacky things, as all rules do, but the DM adjudicates to remove the effects of those wacky things, then the system can work. If the rules suggest wacky things, as all rules do, but the DM is not supposed to adjudicate to remove the effect of those wacky things, then large problems can ensue.

I will grant you freely that playstyle is the largest determinant as to whether wacky things will occur.

So what precisely is your issue with the minion rules in 4E, which the designers have clearly stated are only intented to come into play for combat-relevant context with appropriate level PCs.

Where should I look for that in the books? If not, it is your assumption that this is an assumption of the game.

Folks have already pointed out earlier in the thread where to find the rules that prove you can't deal fractional damage. (Namely, you always round down. One of the few big rules put forward in the very beginning of the PHB, I seem to recall. Thus, fractional damage less than 1 = 0 damage.)

I could likewise say that, because PC gnomes didn't come out in the 1e PHB, 4e assumed that there would be no PC gnomes. Of course, we know that to be false, and we knew (or should have known) that it was false then.

Indeed, that is a perfectly valid comparison! Or, alternatively, not remotely so.

We know new content will appear, since that is an underlying assumption of the game. Assuming that new mechanics will appear that completely contradicts all previously seen mechanics and core fundamentals of the system is a lot less reasonable.

Inventing a hypothetical butterfly that does 1/10000 of a damage at a time is blatantly preposterous, and attempts to treat it as a serious possibility within the context of the game only serve to demonstrate an unwillingness to genuinely engage in this discussion on a reasonable level.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

AFAICT, the butterfly can do 0 hp damage, and the effect be the same in 4e.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. The minions in my MM all have 1 hp. 1 hp - 0 hp = 1 hp, not 0 hp.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by MrMyth

And yet, I'm making it in this thread, since this is the one where you are making arguments based on misinterpretations of the rules and spontaneously invented fake rules. But yes, some common sense is coming into play. The fact it is backed up by the intent and direct instruction of the 4E designers certainly helps, though.

Indeed.

RC: Use common sense when using the minion rules. Problem solved.

As long as you let the players know you're going to be overriding the rules at times, and as long as it doesn't gimp someone's character significantly, I don't see how it's an issue.

[ST]

My wife and I were discussing this thread, and her take was "You guys are arguing about the difference between an art gallery and an art class."

I was like, "Uh, gonna need you to explain that to me."

Her point was that, having only played in a few games, there were only a few folks she'd trust to create a full, detailed world to play in. Her exact words were, "I don't want another Lord of the Rings ripoff". That a world is insanely detailed is not in any way a selling point to her, if it doesn't provide compelling situations for play.

But, she said, there were lots of people she'd be happy to have GM if it's a smaller scope, more "let's create as we go" situation, which may very well have a specific constrained setting and situation, but the focus is not on all that detail. The focus in that kind of game is squarely on the characters, color-heavy, and usually much more about what's introduced at the table than what was pre-prepped.

So in other worlds, if she signs up for an art class, but is instead taken to an art gallery, it doesn't matter how detailed those paintings are -- it wasn't the activity she signed up for.

[jgbrowning]

Originally Posted by ST

I can see why you feel this way as a game designer, but this particular advice is about getting people to use your product, as opposed to what they do during play. It was a very popular model in the 90's, say with Vampire's metaplot-heavy supplements, and much has been written on the disconnect between thinking about play and actual play in that context. I do find it interesting that there aren't any major publishers who find it economically viable these days.

You'll may find it funny, but I'm not a fan of metaplot nor rulebooks with a lot stories and a lot of detail. I prefer broad and bold strokes, with the details left up to individual GMs to fill in depending on what their player's prefer. Something more along the line of the gaming equivilent to an earworm song.

joe b.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by MrMyth

Is it a combat encounter? Has the DM statted out NPCs that are explicitly designed to be relevant to the combat? Then yes, they can certainly kill minions, if he is essentially treating them as backup characters.

So, in other words, your argument is not based upon the RAW, but rather upon how you would like the RAW to be interpretted.


RC

[jgbrowning]

Originally Posted by ST

My wife and I were discussing this thread, and her take was "You guys are arguing about the difference between an art gallery and an art class."

I was like, "Uh, gonna need you to explain that to me."

Her point was that, having only played in a few games, there were only a few folks she'd trust to create a full, detailed world to play in. Her exact words were, "I don't want another Lord of the Rings ripoff". That a world is insanely detailed is not in any way a selling point to her, if it doesn't provide compelling situations for play.

But, she said, there were lots of people she'd be happy to have GM if it's a smaller scope, more "let's create as we go" situation, which may very well have a specific constrained setting and situation, but the focus is not on all that detail. The focus in that kind of game is squarely on the characters, color-heavy, and usually much more about what's introduced at the table than what was pre-prepped.

So in other worlds, if she signs up for an art class, but is instead taken to an art gallery, it doesn't matter how detailed those paintings are -- it wasn't the activity she signed up for.

If you were thinking I'm an art gallery kinda guy, that would be incorrect. I'm a fan of the art class approach and prefer the players to be involved in the creation of the world by thinking about their PCs away from the table, and then bringing their thoughts to the table where the disparate desires of the players and GM are hashed-out and codified as the shared creation.

To me, thinking about playing isn't just prep work, its an integral part of gaming - without which the shared worlds and the game would that much poorer. The more the players and the gm think about the game away from the table, the better the at the table experience can become, IMO.

joe b.

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

The PCs are fighting the ogres while the NPC farmers throw rocks. According to RAW, what happens to the ogres?

I don't know if there is a RAW answer to this. I could be wrong, though.

I prefer to look at NPC-NPC conflicts as "level contests", with the higher level NPC almost always winning (save situational modifiers). Elites and Solos gain a bonus (+2 and +4-5 in my head) and minions a penalty (-5 or so).

If I was running the game, those 1st-level farmers - even if they were trained as slingers by the PCs into skirmishers - would not kill the 11th-level ogre minions on a single hit, and would drop on a single crushing blow from the ogre.

They would be quite a bit more effective against 1st level kobold minions.

Outside of combat, do minions - even low-level ones - only have 1HP? Outside of combat I'd ignore HP and just use common sense and simple level contests.

[ST]

I love those (Gazeteer-type sourcebooks) too, although we probably use them differently in prep. Gazeteers and such are both great for simulation and chock full of color and situation.

I don't think metaplot-heavy is a necessary outgrowth of what I was talking about, just that it was a common approach to turn a game into a continuing line. A line of Gazeteers or whatever is probably more applicable for D&D.

I realize some of the stuff I'm saying sounds like it's trying to 'diagnose' you or label you or something, that's definately not my intent. I'm just describing where following your particular trains of thought would lead me personally.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

RC: Use common sense when using the minion rules. Problem solved.

Use common sense when using the rules, period. All problems solved.


RC

[Storm-Bringer]

Originally Posted by Ourph

This really doesn't have anything to do with the issue I'm discussing with Joe. It's an interesting point, but doesn't really have any bearing on the simulationist world-building aspects of minions.

It does if you want to simulate a world that exists on its own, rather than as a backdrop for the PCs. Minions fall somewhere between 'scenery' and 'monster', but closer to the 'scenery' side. When the PCs are looking, they are dispatched with a successful hit. When the PCs aren't looking, there is no way to determine how durable they are.

As opposed to normal monsters, even in 4e. You can do some rough calculations and figure the 60hp Ogre can survive for X number of rounds against the villagers. If they have a 60% chance of hitting the Ogre, and do 5 points of damage each, that is an effective damage of 3 per round, so they would defeat the Ogre in 20 rounds. Conversely, the Ogre will hit the villagers 80% of the time and do 5 points of damage, for an effective damage per round of 4pts. Villagers have 5hp each, so unless the Ogre can split an attack between two villagers, that would be 16 villagers before he is defeated. If the evil wizard that is behind all this is casting spells also, then you can calculate the damage based on their percentages of being able to save to get the effective damage for the spells.

Unless the villagers are minions, in which case, the numbers start getting wonky. Miss effects are canceled, so the wizard is instantly less effective against the minions than they would be against villagers with hit points. The minions are more threatening than regular peasants because of that.

Theoretical exercise, you may be thinking? What if the PCs have to defend this village? Sure, you can just pull a number out of a hat for the number of villagers that are killed. But you will have no idea how long the PCs have until the villagers are all killed or the enemies are driven off. Arbitrarily picking a number of rounds is the same as tripping a flag in a video game; ie, it has nothing to do with the PCs actions other than clearing a stage or surviving for a certain number of minutes.

Which is fine, if a given group likes that kind of thing. But it demonstrates that minions are problematic for building a world, and that these 'weaker' opponents are more dangerous than regular monsters, depending on who you are. A serious problem when trying to simulate an independent world.

[fanboy2000]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

So, in other words, your argument is not based upon the RAW, but rather upon how you would like the RAW to be interpretted.

I'm not sure how the narrow quote you preceded this comment with suggests that MrMyth isn't following the D&D 4e rules.

In the 4e DMG I, it explicitly states that most NPCs don't need stats. Most NPCs just need a name and some description. Such NPCs wouldn't do any damage to a minion because such an NPC wouldn't participate in combat, per prior decision by the DM to not stat the NPC in the first place. This is entirely consistent with the 4e game rules.

[Loonook]

Originally Posted by LostSoul

I don't know if there is a RAW answer to this. I could be wrong, though.

I prefer to look at NPC-NPC conflicts as "level contests", with the higher level NPC almost always winning (save situational modifiers). Elites and Solos gain a bonus (+2 and +4-5 in my head) and minions a penalty (-5 or so).

If I was running the game, those 1st-level farmers - even if they were trained as slingers by the PCs into skirmishers - would not kill the 11th-level ogre minions on a single hit, and would drop on a single crushing blow from the ogre.

They would be quite a bit more effective against 1st level kobold minions.

Outside of combat, do minions - even low-level ones - only have 1HP? Outside of combat I'd ignore HP and just use common sense and simple level contests.

Honestly, I like this approach... but I would probably take it in a different direction... when we were running a scenario of a large battle in older versions of the game, my first group's DM had a brilliant tactic: 'Grunts' for either side are represented by Unit Points, and the PCs and non-grunt creatures were represented as they are. PCs could cut swathes through grunts by attacking their overall points (similar to swarm or mob rules in 3.x) and grunts would battle against other grunts based on their numbers and how they were being utilized.

PCs in a grunt 'unit' provided a bonus to the Grunts dependent on affinities... a cleric leading a group of temple initiates would give a higher benefit to them than he would give to a group of mercenary archers, and the ranger in the group would do the opposite. In your example, an 11th level Minion may have... 11 UP. Those 1st level commoners? Each at 1 UP. Now, the commoners aren't going to be able to take down that ogre on their own unless they include ranged attackers alongside (allowing the ogre to be surrounded on all sides, then pelted with stones, bolts, etc.) or they have that little bump from the PC in their 'stack' (making them effectively 2 UP or even 3 UP units if the character had specific tactics training, was a warlord/leader of the specific group, had trained the group extensively in tactics... you get the idea).

This of course was the highly simplified form... the DM loved random tables, benefits for units in their terrain, etc. But that's not too difficult to work out based on your +2/-2 sorts of modifiers which a group could receive, or the aid of a specific member of the party. We also used basic routing rules, member loss, etc. to represent the various things which could occur, but creating a system where a Minion may be worth (UP/lvl), a Solo worth (4*UP/lvl), and so on, with bonuses from any specific thing would allow for large-scale battles to be brought about without too many problems... and give the PCs assistance when they help bring the farmhands up against the wolves.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by fanboy2000

I'm not sure how the narrow quote you preceded this comment with suggests that MrMyth isn't following the D&D 4e rules.

I asked for the RAW answer; he failed to supply it.


RC

[AllisterH]

Originally Posted by ExploderWizard

I completely understand why you would use minions in this situation. The nature of the scaling level system makes using lower level monsters a very messy option. If the 1E or OSRIC rules were used those 2nd level bandits could still be decent challenge to a 7th/8th level party in sufficient numbers.

Again I call foul.

I pointed out quite easily how a 7th level heavy armoured PC is easily hitting an AC of -5 meaning you need at least 20 2nd level bandits to even hit the PCs since you are going to need a natural 20.

As an aside, Aunt Harriet might not be able to hit the minions since unless I missed something, there's no natural 20 hit rule in 4e.

EDIT: In fact, using the ogre versus the famer example, there's no way for a farmer to actually HIT an ogre. An ogre minion could have either an AC of 23 or 28 which means that the human rabble (assuming that's the appropriate stats for a human farmer) can't even hit the latter minion.

Keep in mind, even though I find the concept of minions workable, I'm personally not adverse to critiques about HOW they're implemented. For example, the minions from MM2 are much better designed than the MM1 especially the higher level ones AND I also agree that minions are valued too much (I use 4 minions per pc + 1 per half tier when doing budgeting)

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

Use common sense when using the rules, period. All problems solved.

Indeed. Bearing in mind that the DM isn't the only one at the table.