Upthread somebody pointed out that in reality we aren't in control of all of our thoughts/reactions/emotions...that the mind is a mysterious black box...and that having the DM step in and make that determination is therefore "realistic". (Or something like that.)
But we are not talking about how the player's mind works, we are talking about the character's mind. So, while the observation about the black box has merit, I believe the player should be in firm control of the black box, except when game mechanics determine otherwise.
I'm a bit perplexed here, as you seem to presume that we haven't been talking about the character's mind. In fact, I don't think that any of us have talked thus far about the player's mind, as we have been focused on the character's mental states. But again, I think that this touches upon my earlier point that your whole "black box" perspective - since you appear to be introducing a novel idea of a black box - essentially approaches this issue from the lens of mind-body duality and tabula rasa-style free-will. Whereas I think that a lot of us who made mention of human irrationality view this through the lens of cognitive science, behavioral psychology, and biolgoical psychosomatic processes. So from our perspective, it largely simulates the human condition and experience (and characters within dramatic stories) while not depriving us of any fundamental agency in roleplay.
Hit points per se aren't a part of the game world but what they describe - a creature's general degree of toughness and resilience - is.
I don't necessarily agree here, Lanefan, which may be part of the problem. I regard hit points foremost as a pacing mechanic rather than some sort of dogmatic truth about the nature of the creature. And part of the DM's responsibility is to manipulate the pacing of encounters, so having the DM alter HP of creatures doesn't bother me at all presuming that it's fair or well. A level one party of four fighting a 100 goblins with 1000 HP each would be unfair by most reasonable metrics in any edition of D&D.
Take a typical ogre. They're usually pretty tough and can take a few solid hits from pretty much any other ogre before going down - this is represented in game mechanics by their usually having a decent amount of h.p. - let's for argument's sake say 60 each. So two of these ogres get into a fight - they whale on each other a while until one goes down bruised and bleeding and the other steals his cake. We're good so far, right?
Well, no. If they whale on each other, then it doesn't matter what their HP are, because the GM controls the entirety of the fiction. They could have them fight non-stop for days or have the other be killed from a bee sting without picking up the dice once and regardless of the listed HP. Most DMs do this all the time. All the time.
But now let's put these same ogres - who for consistency's sake should ALWAYS have toughness represented by 60 h.p. - and make them minions, and put them up against a high-level character who with good rolling can give out maybe 45 h.p. damage per round. If these ogres could keep their normal toughness they'd on average give that PC at least a 3-round workout before going down...but they're minions, meaning with good rolling the PC can wipe them out in a hearbeat. This is where the glaring inconsistency arises with minion rules, particularly when applied to larger and-or (usually) much tougher creatures.
(1) Why is the bold required for consistency's sake? My sense of ogres or their consistency does not hinge on how many HP they have, but on the fact that they are ogres in the fiction. HP is one tool, among many, that the DM can manipulate to control the pacing of the encounter. Some monsters will have more HP than in the MM, and others will have less. Minions have 1 HP and it's shorthand for saying that they take one hit. So yes, ogres are usually tough, or at least they were before, but now you know how to fight them better and make your hits count.
(2) How does applying the minion rules consistently create a "glaring inconsistency"?
Though I am now imaginging ogres getting upset that PCs don't follow the internal consistency of their humanoid type:
Ogre 1: Karlogg, it just upsets me that the humanoid adventurers we encounter have variable hit points.
Ogre 2: What about it, Uzar?
Ogre 1: Let's take a typical human. They have 4 HP. This means that it should only require one hit to kill them. So for consistency's sake, they should all have 4 HP. And yet, the other day we encountered humans who now have 64 HP! What's up with that? I don't understand how they can work when viewed through any sort of lens of internal consistency.
Anyway...
I don't understand how they can work when viewed through any sort of lens of internal consistency.
But as you know, it does work for many who have used minions. Why do you think that may be the case? And while you genuinely consider your answer to that with actual reflection about other people with differing gaming preferences...
IMHO, I think that opposition to minions is predominately is a DM-side problem and far less of a player-side problem. I don't think that I have ever encountered in
my own experience a single player - regardless of which side of the DM screen I was sitting on at the time - who complained about minions ever. I'm not saying that there aren't players who oppose minion rules, but I think all complaints I have encountered have come from the DM side of the equation. I suspect that the issue from the DM-side of things is that minion rules essentially show the DM how the sausage is made, and some DMs don't like anything that makes them aware of that. In contrast, players see and engage the fiction.
Of course, I'm not entirely sure how minions are relevant to the larger discourse on winking maidens and melting hearts.
Why, you ask? Because one expects that a player is going to have some sort of basic idea about what makes a character tick, and will maybe even have some notes to that effect e.g.:
...
And then the maiden winks at him...and those notes suddenly might not mean as much as they did a moment ago.
Or those player notes may mean more now, since the melting of his heart by the maiden's wink may signify that the character has found a lady of noble standing worth fighting for rather than simply the furtive dream of a noble lady. Or maybe the lady that affects them the most is not the one their mind was previously set upon. Of course it's also the player's responsibility to hit curveballs like this when they are encountered in the fiction. Otherwise, it almost seems like the character-side equivalent of railroading.