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

[A_Carrington]

No one likes the new art.

 

[Enrahim]

Defeated can include alive or dead in the end. Destroyed really can't.

So, what is a term for a thing that is rendered completely irrelevant for the rest of the narrative, while not implying anything about the level of "aliveness"?

I suddenly realized that "taken out" is a formulation I think I have seen used in some game. Might this have been a term that could have achieved this?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, what is a term for a thing that is rendered completely irrelevant for the rest of the narrative, while not implying anything about the level of "aliveness"?

I suddenly realized that "taken out" is a formulation I think I have seen used in some game. Might this have been a term that could have achieved this?

Not sure what you mean by "the rest of the narrative" in this context.

 

[Lanefan]

So, what is a term for a thing that is rendered completely irrelevant for the rest of the narrative, while not implying anything about the level of "aliveness"?

Hors de combat?

Downed?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hors de combat?

Downed?

I still see zero problem with "defeated".

 

[Enrahim]

Not sure what you mean by "the rest of the narrative" in this context.

From a game perspective the idea is that we do not want the players to interact with that individual ever again. From a narrative perspective this individual are supposed to no longer be interesting. The problem is that the simulation side come in and say - how are you going to acheive that?

Someone running away is from a sim perspective a potential target, which give it a gameplay effect we do not want. Someone unconcious could from a sim perspective be interrogated which would give the individual narrative relevance. Even a creature killed could from a sim perspective be harvested for parts - which again could be narratively or game mechanically relevant.

In other words a defeated minion is still too relevant from both a game and narrative perspective compared to what the ideal vision of a minion indicates they should be. This due to the constraints imposed by the game being a simulation. This is an awful design situation to be in. There is clearly a vision that seem cool here, but the concept of players being able to do anything within the simulation seem to make it impossible. "Destroyed" to the rescue! Clearly noone can interact meaningfully with something that is destroyed!

Design problem solved trough clever wordplay. That this is impossible to make sense in fiction in certain context is a design trade-off we are willing to take. We got our desired, game and narrative effect - so that sim has to suffer is just to be expected (Remember GNS was the hot stuff while 4ed was developed)

Edit: Just in case this isn't clear. This is not a design tradeoff I think I would have been willing to make myself if designing a TTRPG - but I recognise there might have been severe design requirements in play that more or less forced this kind of emergency solution.

 

[Micah Sweet]

From a game perspective the idea is that we do not want the players to interact with that individual ever again. From a narrative perspective this individual are supposed to no longer be interesting. The problem is that the simulation side come in and say - how are you going to acheive that?

Someone running away is from a sim perspective a potential target, which give it a gameplay effect we do not want. Someone unconcious could from a sim perspective be interrogated which would give the individual narrative relevance. Even a creature killed could from a sim perspective be harvested for parts - which again could be narratively or game mechanically relevant.

In other words a defeated minion is still too relevant from both a game and narrative perspective compared to what the ideal vision of a minion indicates they should be. This due to the constraints imposed by the game being a simulation. This is an awful design situation to be in. There is clearly a vision that seem cool here, but the concept of players being able to do anything within the simulation seem to make it impossible. "Destroyed" to the rescue! Clearly noone can interact meaningfully with something that is destroyed!

Design problem solved trough clever wordplay. That this is impossible to make sense in fiction in certain context is a design trade-off we are willing to take. We got our desired, game and narrative effect - so that sim has to suffer is just to be expected (Remember GNS was the hot stuff while 4ed was developed)

I see, thank you. As a Sim proponent I just assumed all those Sim perspective issues would always be in play and I have no problem with any of them.

 

[Lanefan]

From a game perspective the idea is that we do not want the players to interact with that individual ever again.

Why on earth not? I think the intent is that the individual is no longer relevant for that specific combat; it's not saying anything about afterwards or down the road e.g. an opponent that flees today might come back with some buddies tomorrow.

From a narrative perspective this individual are supposed to no longer be interesting. The problem is that the simulation side come in and say - how are you going to acheive that?

Someone running away is from a sim perspective a potential target, which give it a gameplay effect we do not want. Someone unconcious could from a sim perspective be interrogated which would give the individual narrative relevance. Even a creature killed could from a sim perspective be harvested for parts - which again could be narratively or game mechanically relevant.

A creature killed can still give useful info - Speak With Dead for the win.

In other words a defeated minion is still too relevant from both a game and narrative perspective compared to what the ideal vision of a minion indicates they should be. This due to the constraints imposed by the game being a simulation. This is an awful design situation to be in. There is clearly a vision that seem cool here, but the concept of players being able to do anything within the simulation seem to make it impossible. "Destroyed" to the rescue! Clearly noone can interact meaningfully with something that is destroyed!

Again, Speak With Dead. Or, if they're really desperate, Revivify.

Design problem solved trough clever wordplay. That this is impossible to make sense in fiction in certain context is a design trade-off we are willing to take. We got our desired, game and narrative effect - so that sim has to suffer is just to be expected (Remember GNS was the hot stuff while 4ed was developed)

Edit: Just in case this isn't clear. This is not a design tradeoff I think I would have been willing to make myself if designing a TTRPG - but I recognise there might have been severe design requirements in play that more or less forced this kind of emergency solution.

Well, same here; I'd not have designed minions in the first place. But what you say holds true for any mook-like foe, not just capital-m Minions.

 

[Deset Gled]

If someone manage to come up with a way to describe a in-fiction tripped cube that resonate with me, even if a bit contrived that would resolve that situation. If this description is based upon the cube sensibly becoming flat in the fiction, or trough some clever explanation how it might make sense to get the relevant mechanical effects despite the cube still being a cube is sort of irrelevant. If I was presented with both a contrived, but acceptable in-fiction tweak, and a somewhat contrived rules interpretation, I really don't know what I would go for.

I never had much of an issue with tripping cubes, for the same reason I don't have issues with tripping foes in zero g. It's about disorientation. I'll admit the mechanics aren't always perfect (and vary by game and/or edition), but the concept is functional enough for me.

 

[Hussar]

Any one term runs into similar problems. Such as applying "dying" to that which was never alive to begin with.

Except that dying is rules defined and you're somehow trying to argue that those definitions don't apply to "destroyed" mostly because that specific interpretation supports your argument. You are rejecting any other interpretation. In other words, you're playing semantic silly buggers in order to score points.

After all, "dying" is a game defined term. But, apparently, you somehow believe that minions are immortal beings that are without any biology because they can never "die" only be destroyed. By your interpretation, a minion orc never needs to eat (since you don't take damage from starvation - which means it cannot starve), drink (same) or breathe (same - suffocation doesn't destroy, it causes the target to die).

All because you insist on an idiosyncratic reading of the rules that is very clearly not supported by the intent of the rules.