D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[clearstream]

Wasn't there at least one official 4e module that included minion Dragons or similar?

Also, do undead count as humanoids? They show up as minions in various places, if memory serves.

The poster was saying 'not only' i.e. that there are non-humaniod minions as well as humanoid minions. I was saying that the inclusion of non-humanoid minions makes no difference to me so long as there are humanoid minions. Your memory is right, but as you can see it just covers the same ground.

 

[clearstream]

Much inspiration for D&D warriors are pulp heroes of the past, your Conan's and your John Carter's, who routinely slaughter scores of foes to achieve their goals. If that's not ok nowadays, I can see asking D&D to change- but saying the minion mechanic encourages this more than anything else? Feels like a stretch to me.

The word in bold doesn't capture my distaste for the minions mechanics. I've explained why upthread e.g. in my #22,170, #22,139, and #22,125. I don't wish to engage in pretending characters feel confident and powerful mass slaughtering humanoids. For me the game mechanics landscape isn't an undifferentiated blur in this respect, for example I see the AoE spells in a somewhat different light... I think because the minions mechanic is architecting the game reality specifically to ennable narratives of mass slaughter.

Simply put, obliterating scores of enemies is deep in the game's DNA. If make-believe genocide concerns a person (and I'm not saying it shouldn't, mind), then that's something that should have been fixed long ago, and I don't really see how 4e is any more or less at fault than any other edition in this regard.

The 4e minions mechanics is more troubling to me, but 4e overall is not. The rest is largely on par with other versions in these respects. As to whether "obliterating scores of enemies is deep in the game's DNA" maybe so. I haven't played D&D that way for decades so I think that is ultimately settled at the table.

Much inspiration for D&D warriors are pulp heroes of the past, your Conan's and your John Carter's, who routinely slaughter scores of foes to achieve their goals. If that's not ok nowadays, I can see asking D&D to change- but saying the minion mechanic encourages this more than anything else? Feels like a stretch to me.

For me it's not a matter of "not ok nowadays". It was never okay. But if you read the linked posts perhaps you will see that while my preference is motivated by a real-world moral concern (which it seems you agree with) I am not saying it is necessarily immoral in fiction.* Even so, architecting the game reality to ennable narratives of mass slaughter in the way the 4e minions mechanic does goes too far for me. I don't desire that affordance in my fiction.


*We have discussed upthread the long-standing worry that fiction can impact upon real-life morality. Examples were given of positive impacts such as moral-learning. If that means that impact is possible I don't see how one excludes negative impacts, and inadvertant as well as intentional. But we didn't establish compelling evidence drawing a direct line from the minions mechanics; and as you say even if such a line can be drawn it's probably from more points in the game than solely minions. My distaste isn't identical to such moral worries.

 

[Bae'zel]

Interesting debate, for sure.

Minion rules can definitely go against the mood or theme of a campaign (or piece of fiction). If the pitch is "introspective Gothic Horror" then I probably would NOT include minion rules as it depersonalizes things too much. Or if you're going for more gritty, low-key stories.

Swarms though? Having the party ovewhelmed by a swarm of rats, bugs, snakes etc... Is obviously fine as that's a cross-cultural phenomenon (instinctual fear of swarms of vermin is quite universal).

 

[Enrahim]

The word in bold doesn't capture my distaste for the minions mechanics. I've explained why upthread e.g. in my #22,170, #22,139, and #22,125. I don't wish to engage in pretending characters feel confident and powerful mass slaughtering humanoids. For me the game mechanics landscape isn't an undifferentiated blur in this respect, for example I see the AoE spells in a somewhat different light... I think because the minions mechanic is architecting the game reality specifically to ennable narratives of mass slaughter.

I just want to point out that you here work under an assumption of killing. Remember 4ed was also the edition that introduced free knockout - and actually does so for all sources of reducing to zero.

That is it does enable narratives of mass slaughter. But it also enables Jackie Chan style action with goons that faints from a smack in the face, or are out of the combat from getting their weapon arm twisted. A claim that the minions mechanics is specifically architected for one of these, rather than the other I find quite extraordinary.

Indeed I would argue that the fact that they only have 1 hp make it easier to justify the non-lethal interpretation, as they are not really putting up any real resistance indicating lethal force is required to take them out - they are out of the combat at the first time they get hurt at all - wouldn't that be easier interpreted as a complete absence of fighting morale rather than some weird deficiency in survivability? (At least for creatures of a certain sentience. If your problem extends to mass slaughter of zombies or actual vermin, I guess that is harder to narrate into a poor morale context - but easier to narrate into a concept of fragile pests that "should" be exterminated)

 

[clearstream]

I just want to point out that you here work under an assumption of killing. Remember 4ed was also the edition that introduced free knockout - and actually does so for all sources of reducing to zero.

That is it does enable narratives of mass slaughter. But it also enables Jackie Chan style action with goons that faints from a smack in the face, or are out of the combat from getting their weapon arm twisted. A claim that the minions mechanics is specifically architected for one of these, rather than the other I find quite extraordinary.

That's an interesting thought, abeit it doesn't work under 4e RAW. "When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it " but "A minion is destroyed when it takes any amount of damage."

 

[Hussar]

So, let me get this straight.

My PC kills fifteen orcs with a fireball, and that's perfectly, morally acceptable.

My PC kills fifteen orc minions with a fireball and that's morally bad?

That's some REALLY fine hairs to be splitting. Back in the AD&D days, a fighter with a high strength could instantly kill humanoids on a hit - as in his minimum damage was greater than the HP of the NPC's. That certainly wasn't unrealistic. Any percentile strength was +3 to damage, double weapon specs from Unearthed Arcana was +3 to damage. Broadswords did 2d4 damage - so, minimum damage was 8. Insta-kill for anything 1HD or less. Never minding that any spell that did 16 damage or more would instantly kill any 1HD creature or less, often in pretty large numbers.

Was this somehow morally repugnant? Somehow giving NPC's 1 HP is morally bad but having 2 HP is fine?

Look, hey, whatever float's your boat @clearstream. You don't like the minion mechanics and whatever reason is yours is yours alone and is perfectly fine. But, I think you're going to have a pretty tough row to hoe to try to convince anyone else that this is a moral issue. And, frankly, why would you even bother? Of all the moral issues associated with D&D, this one is so, so far down the list that even I'm having a tough time finding the point.

 

[SableWyvern]

So, let me get this straight.

My PC kills fifteen orcs with a fireball, and that's perfectly, morally acceptable.

My PC kills fifteen orc minions with a fireball and that's morally bad?

That's some REALLY fine hairs to be splitting. Back in the AD&D days, a fighter with a high strength could instantly kill humanoids on a hit - as in his minimum damage was greater than the HP of the NPC's. That certainly wasn't unrealistic. Any percentile strength was +3 to damage, double weapon specs from Unearthed Arcana was +3 to damage. Broadswords did 2d4 damage - so, minimum damage was 8. Insta-kill for anything 1HD or less. Never minding that any spell that did 16 damage or more would instantly kill any 1HD creature or less, often in pretty large numbers.

Was this somehow morally repugnant? Somehow giving NPC's 1 HP is morally bad but having 2 HP is fine?

Look, hey, whatever float's your boat @clearstream. You don't like the minion mechanics and whatever reason is yours is yours alone and is perfectly fine. But, I think you're going to have a pretty tough row to hoe to try to convince anyone else that this is a moral issue. And, frankly, why would you even bother? Of all the moral issues associated with D&D, this one is so, so far down the list that even I'm having a tough time finding the point.

Although @clearstream calls it a moral issue, when he goes into more detail, it appears it's actually just a matter of personal preference: the rule makes him uncomfortable, but it's use or existence is not immoral.

 

[Hussar]

Although @clearstream calls it a moral issue, when he goes into more detail, it appears it's actually just a matter of personal preference: the rule makes him uncomfortable, but it's use or existence is not immoral.

Yes, well, as I said, I've only sort of tangentially followed the discussion. But, don't they discuss their discomfort in terms of colonialist narratives?

But, in any case, like I said, not liking minions as a mechanic is fine. I don't really get it, but, whatever floats your boat. I mean, maybe it's the wargammer in me. Wargaming units are almost always minions. And, the whole HP thing is not the only way to do combat. After all, in Savage Worlds, everything drops after one successful attack unless you are a PC or a very, very special NPC. Even going way, way back to the old 007 RPG, you were generally dropped after one successful attack, depending on the damage class of your weapon.

It's largely D&D and derivatives that force combat to play through several successful attacks before defeating an opponent. There are tons of games out there that don't use HP or similar sorts of combat systems (wound/vitality, etc).

 

[SableWyvern]

Yes, well, as I said, I've only sort of tangentially followed the discussion. But, don't they discuss their discomfort in terms of colonialist narratives?

Reading into what's been said, I have concluded that what they actually mean when saying it's a moral issue is something along the lines of, "This mechanic makes me think about things I find immoral in the real world and thus it makes me uncomfortable." Which means the mechanic itself isn't actually immoral, and it's really just a matter of personal boundaries.

 

[Hussar]

Reading into what's been said, I have concluded that what they actually mean when saying it's a moral issue is something along the lines of, "This mechanic makes me think about things I find immoral in the real world and thus it makes me uncomfortable." Which means the mechanic itself isn't actually immoral, and it's really just a matter of personal boundaries.

Like I said, fair enough. It's a bit of a stretch too far for me. But, then again, it is very much in keeping with most of the criticisms of systems that I've seen over the years. 6 impossible things before breakfast is perfectly fine, but that seventh one? Hoo Boy, that's a bridge too far. I don't really feel it, and, honestly, feel that it's pretty intellectually dishonest to pretend that those 6 things are perfectly fine when they also fit the criteria of why that 7th thing is bad. That's been the recurring theme throughout this thread though.

The DM changing the setting is perfectly fine, until it isn't. Mechanics that are completely divorced from any in game reality are perfectly fine, until they aren't. And the mental and rhetorical gymnastics required to "prove" that that 7th thing is completely different from the first six is something I find extremely exhausting. But, honestly? Very much in keeping with pretty much every issue brought up in this thread.