I think I see where the disconnect is coming from. Hussar is arguing from a discrete perspective. That logically the only difference between a 1 hp commoner and a 1 hp minion is semantic. I see his point.
jgb and others are arguing from the perspective that it is different because a commoner has 1 hp regardless of whether they are in combat or not. A 4e minion is specifically undefined as to their existence or durability outside of combat. That is the rub for them. Its the fact that their stats are defined only in relation to combat.
I think the 3e fans like to have that concrete determination of hps as a foundation that can inform world building. The 4e fans don't think its relevant because its really only the end result that matters. For them a monster is simply a construct, its existence only relevant in its ability to challenge the PCs or the needs of the story.
For example, in 3e, if I wanted foe to challenge my PCs, I would have a power level in mind, and have a general target AC, HP, damage etc, that I feel that foe should have. Then I would build them according to the rules. Adding in class levels, templates, factoring in spell buffs etc. The 3e fans feel comfortable in having these layers defined and calculated so that if necessary they can deconstruct their villain as needed. They also use this building process as a way to round out their villain. Even if his 9 ranks of rope use never ever comes into play, they feel comfortable knowing its there in case it does come into play.
The 4e fans, have a different mindset. They also pick target numbers, but rather than feeling enabled by the system that 3e used, they view it as an obstacle to getting the result they want. In that sense 4e is completely different than 3e. In 4e, if I want to create a foe of a given power level, the system just flat out tells me what numbers they should have. From the perspective of a 4e DM, this is all I care about. Feats, skill ranks, none of that matters to a 4e and having to pick it is a time consuming burden.
One way isn't better than the other. Its simply a matter of preference.
For a 4e fan, being unconstrained by a system when creating NPCs or monsters is a liberating experience. For them its like they can get to the story without the drudge work. For them it doesn't matter how many hps an NPC has. NPCs don't exist outside the narrative framework. They are mind boggled when 3e fans try to articulate why they prefer the 3e system. They logically point out that no matter how detailed your world, no matter how many rules subsystems you use, ultimately its all just made up anyway. Better to use a rule system that makes it easier to make stuff up rather than one that constrains you with endless rules and systems. Speaking as a 4e fan myself. This is my personal feeling as well.
But I understand the 3e perspective. For a 3e fan, the 4e method would probably feel wishy-wash, nebulous, and incomplete. The system probably feels adrift, like its missing a solid foundation. The rules and subsystems aren't obstacles, but guideposts aiding them in their game prep and world building.
