D&D 4E In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective

Saelorn said:

For most games, you could see HP as an abstract game element, if you wanted to; but you could also take it as just the way things worked, in that alternate reality. It's clearly not our world, because a real person can't reliably survive such hazards as a high-level character could, but exploring an alternate world has always been one of the big selling points for RPGs. (You could argue that minions are realistic, based on how things work in our own world, but they aren't consistent with how everything else works in their world.)

What 4E did was to take a hard stance, that HP were definitely just a game element that didn't signify anything deeper about how the world worked, and force everyone else to either take it or leave it. I don't think the designers necessarily realized how many people would see that as a deal-breaker.

Click to expand...

I think if you're going to start suggesting that "in an alternate reality, things could be different" you have little ground to stand on in suggesting 4E's minion rules are flawed. In the 4E "alternate reality" that's clearly how things work.

By no means do you have to play in that specific alternate reality. But if we're going to rely on a "many worlds" theory and that in each of them "things may be different" then 4E is no better or worse than any other approach.

You're actually the first person I've seen complain about minion rules being immersion breaking, so perhaps the designers did account for that, and found the actual number of people who would see it as a deal-breaker not worth accounting for. They can't make everyone happy.

Immortal Sun said:

I think if you're going to start suggesting that "in an alternate reality, things could be different" you have little ground to stand on in suggesting 4E's minion rules are flawed. In the 4E "alternate reality" that's clearly how things work.

By no means do you have to play in that specific alternate reality. But if we're going to rely on a "many worlds" theory and that in each of them "things may be different" then 4E is no better or worse than any other approach.

Click to expand...

Right. My actual complaint is that, if you try to take that approach with 4E - if you assume that minions are a thing within the game world, and that characters can observe and understand this phenomenon - then the alternate reality being described sounds really goofy. Like, actual fourth-wall-breaking comedy. It's like you're playing in Robin Hood: Men in Tights, or any given Discworld novel.

The previously-mentioned idea, that it's a world where luck and destiny are tangible forces that shape everything, is the closest thing I've seen to anyone trying to pitch that angle seriously. I still think that world sounds goofy, personally, but I could see how someone else might be able to take it seriously.

Immortal Sun said:

You're actually the first person I've seen complain about minion rules being immersion breaking, so perhaps the designers did account for that, and found the actual number of people who would see it as a deal-breaker not worth accounting for. They can't make everyone happy.

Click to expand...

I guess you're new around here? The consensus of players who left 4E for Pathfinder was that minions, martial healing, Come And Get It, and the AEDU structure (for martial classes) were the most immersion-breaking aspects of the game. Not everybody left due to immersion issues, but of those who did, minions were one of the top reasons.

Saelorn said:

Right. My actual complaint is that, if you try to take that approach with 4E - if you assume that minions are a thing within the game world, and that characters can observe and understand this phenomenon - then the alternate reality being described sounds really goofy. Like, actual fourth-wall-breaking comedy. It's like you're playing in Robin Hood: Men in Tights, or any given Discworld novel.

Click to expand...

This feels there there should awfullllllly big IMO in this statement somewhere.

The previously-mentioned idea, that it's a world where luck and destiny are tangible forces that shape everything, is the closest thing I've seen to anyone trying to pitch that angle seriously. I still think that world sounds goofy, personally, but I could see how someone else might be able to take it seriously.

Click to expand...

I think trying to say every game rule is actually attempting to simulate a tangible element of reality is also quite silly, but hey that's just IMO.

I guess you're new around here? The consensus of players who left 4E for Pathfinder was that minions, martial healing, Come And Get It, and the AEDU structure (for martial classes) were the most immersion-breaking aspects of the game. Not everybody left due to immersion issues, but of those who did, minions were one of the top reasons.

Click to expand...

I've heard endless complaints about martial healing. I've heard endless complaints about "Come and Get It" though I find those complaints stem more from "The fighter should be the guy who hits things with a stick!!" types, and I've heard endless complaints about the AEDU structure (for all classes, again the "just for fighters" argument tends to stem from people who seem to think fighters shouldn't do cool things and I ignore those people). So yes, I've heard the litany of kvetching about 4E over the years.

However, I have never heard complaints about minions. Ever. And I'm a huge 4E fan and I've very personally gotten heat for that. But minions? Eh. Never heard those complaints. Honest truth, never heard anyone complain about minions. Generally speaking even among 4E haters, what 4E did for monsters is usually regarded positively.

I don't think anyone will dispute you can have fun with any edition of D&D. We had 1 really good session of 4E but just liked the other ones better.

Immortal Sun said:

This feels there there should awfullllllly big IMO in this statement somewhere.

Click to expand...

Do you disagree? Are you saying that you would have no trouble staying in character, and keeping a straight face, while suggesting that the ranger sneak around to the left and throw a small rock to kill the ogre on guard, since it looks like it doesn't have a name? Maybe you're just a better actor than I am.

Immortal Sun said:

However, I have never heard complaints about minions. Ever. And I'm a huge 4E fan and I've very personally gotten heat for that. But minions? Eh. Never heard those complaints. Honest truth, never heard anyone complain about minions. Generally speaking even among 4E haters, what 4E did for monsters is usually regarded positively.

Click to expand...

That seems improbable, but far be it from me to deny your lived experience. Based on my own observations, minions were always near the top of the list, in any thread I saw about it.

As for monster rules, in general, I've noticed a division based on why the player hated 4E. Some people hated 4E because the classes felt same-y, or because of the magic item economy, or any number of things; and those people tended to be on-board with the simplified monster rules. For people who hated 4E due to immersion-related issues, anything that artificially distinguished between PCs and NPCs was going to be a problem, and minions just felt too artificial.

The monster rules worked, from a Gamist standpoint; and the minion rules were great, if you were a Narrativist; but both of them scored poorly with the Simulationists which made up the 3.x fanbase.

Saelorn said:

Do you disagree? Are you saying that you would have no trouble staying in character, and keeping a straight face, while suggesting that the ranger sneak around to the left and throw a small rock to kill the ogre on guard, since it looks like it doesn't have a name? Maybe you're just a better actor than I am.

Click to expand...

Maybe. And there's nothing wrong with that. I think minions help facilitate certain more "cinematic" elements of gameplay, such as the assassin taking out the guard with a single neck snap. Without special corner-case rules to facilitate such an event, this can't happen in say, 5E or 3.5/Pathfinder

Though I think the "ogre minion" commentary feels a little corner-casey to me. I tend to use minions for hordes, zombies, kobolds, humanoid armies. Sure, you can make a minion for everything, (minion dragon whelps was arguably the most adroable death trap I ever made) but I do tend to agree there's a point where it's just too big, too powerful or too something to be a minion, at least in comparison to the players. I wouldn't argue against an ogre minion and a 20th level player. Even a regular ogre wouldn't pose much challenge.

That seems improbable, but far be it from me to deny your lived experience. Based on my own observations, minions were always near the top of the list, in any thread I saw about it.

As for monster rules, in general, I've noticed a division based on why the player hated 4E. Some people hated 4E because the classes felt same-y, or because of the magic item economy, or any number of things; and those people tended to be on-board with the simplified monster rules. For people who hated 4E due to immersion-related issues, anything that artificially distinguished between PCs and NPCs was going to be a problem, and minions just felt too artificial.

The monster rules worked, from a Gamist standpoint; and the minion rules were great, if you were a Narrativist; but both of them scored poorly with the Simulationists which made up the 3.x fanbase.

Click to expand...

And I am most certainly not a simulationist. Even though I love 3.5, I love it because it's like legos, you can put together almost anything with a little creativity and elbow grease. But 4E strikes me as a little more "cinematic" and I agree with the "wuxia" commentary I've heard in the past, though I enjoy that it certainly has it's place in things.

But I'm sort of a system agnostic. I'll play almost anything and there's very little on the game side of things that can slow down my ability to get immersed in a game. It's either the DM sucks at setting the scene or the other players won't shut up about football.

Immortal Sun said:

This feels there there should awfullllllly big IMO in this statement somewhere.


I think trying to say every game rule is actually attempting to simulate a tangible element of reality is also quite silly, but hey that's just IMO.



I've heard endless complaints about martial healing. I've heard endless complaints about "Come and Get It" though I find those complaints stem more from "The fighter should be the guy who hits things with a stick!!" types, and I've heard endless complaints about the AEDU structure (for all classes, again the "just for fighters" argument tends to stem from people who seem to think fighters shouldn't do cool things and I ignore those people). So yes, I've heard the litany of kvetching about 4E over the years.

However, I have never heard complaints about minions. Ever. And I'm a huge 4E fan and I've very personally gotten heat for that. But minions? Eh. Never heard those complaints. Honest truth, never heard anyone complain about minions. Generally speaking even among 4E haters, what 4E did for monsters is usually regarded positively.

Click to expand...

Minions were a great addition to 4e I felt. One of my problems I had with 4e was with the aedu structure, in particular with martial characters. It wasn't that I was against fighters doing cool things, instead I found that the fighters only being able to do cool things once per day or once per an encounter to be the jarring part. If they had given different classes a different power structure such as fighters having a number of at will manoeuvers instead of everyone having aedu I probably would have liked it better.

cbwjm said:

Minions were a great addition to 4e I felt. One of my problems I had with 4e was with the aedu structure, in particular with martial characters. It wasn't that I was against fighters doing cool things, instead I found that the fighters only being able to do cool things once per day or once per an encounter to be the jarring part. If they had given different classes a different power structure such as fighters having a number of at will manoeuvers instead of everyone having aedu I probably would have liked it better.

Click to expand...

See, what I find odd is that that is the exact same complaint I have about 3.5/PF's memorized spell system. You memorized the spell, but you can only cast it once? Did you have to memorize it 4 times? Does repetition ever kick in like when you memorize the answers to a test? Wouldn't at some point you just KNOW the spell, like if someone said "Quick John! Recite Fireball!" you could just do it?

I did make adjustments to 4E's ADEU system because I agree, doing something you know how to do only once seems a bit odd to me. So I basically gave classes encounter/daily "slots" equal to the number of those powers they knew. It's not a complete correction, the game still needs limits, but it made it more of "you can only exert yourself this hard X times per day".

Immortal Sun said:

See, what I find odd is that that is the exact same complaint I have about 3.5/PF's memorized spell system. You memorized the spell, but you can only cast it once? Did you have to memorize it 4 times? Does repetition ever kick in like when you memorize the answers to a test? Wouldn't at some point you just KNOW the spell, like if someone said "Quick John! Recite Fireball!" you could just do it?

I did make adjustments to 4E's ADEU system because I agree, doing something you know how to do only once seems a bit odd to me. So I basically gave classes encounter/daily "slots" equal to the number of those powers they knew. It's not a complete correction, the game still needs limits, but it made it more of "you can only exert yourself this hard X times per day".

Click to expand...

I've never been a huge fan of the Canadian style of magic but I could put up with it as "the rules of magic." As in, this is how magic works in this reality. For something like a fighter, they had stances but you could only use that stance once per day? That was weird to me. It isn't only 4e that had this problem, I'm sure that if I loomed I could find something similar in 3e or earlier, it was just more pronounced because of 4e's standard power system.

Giving slots seems like a good compromise, not perfect but definitely better.

cbwjm said:

I've never been a huge fan of the Canadian style of magic but I could put up with it as "the rules of magic." As in, this is how magic works in this reality. For something like a fighter, they had stances but you could only use that stance once per day? That was weird to me. It isn't only 4e that had this problem, I'm sure that if I loomed I could find something similar in 3e or earlier, it was just more pronounced because of 4e's standard power system.

Giving slots seems like a good compromise, not perfect but definitely better.

Click to expand...

LOL@ Canadian style of magic. I'm not sure if that's an auto correct or not but it's funny as heck.

I've had to read back through but I thought 4E's stances worked just like 3.5's Tome of Battle? You switched into one and stayed in that stance until you didn't? I mean I guess if you switched out you couldn't go back...but I don't really remember the 4E stance rules.