At what point do players know they're fighting Minions?

[KarinsDad]

Only that it has been specifically said to make it easy to figure out what is minions, KD. Much like it has been said to make it easy to figure out that a monster has an aura around it. Avoid "gotcha" moments that are antagonistic to the players.

I guess this is the crux of the issue.

I don't see where a player using an Encounter area or close power to take out a bunch of minons or even using a Daily area or close power to take out a bunch of minions is the DM being "antagonistic".

If a player was bothered by that in my game, I'd ask him what the big deal is. It's not as if the Encounter or Daily power is lost forever. With 4 minions and 4 standard monsters, didn't he just wipe out 2 of the 4 minions (or even wipe out one or more minions and hurt some standards)? 10% of the encounter is wiped out with a single power from a single player. If every PC were capable of doing that, the encounter would be over in 2 rounds and would save a lot of resources like healing surges.


Stunning the PCs is a lot more of a gotcha and unfun than this and more than 10% of all creatures can stun.


There is one purpose for minions and one purpose only. To increase the number of foes so that the players can wipe through a bunch of them in an epic-like battle. If minion battles are supposed to "appear" more threatening (e.g Orcs inside Moria) but not really be more threatening, where exactly is the thrill of that threat if the DM states which foes are threats and which are not?

The DM has two options:

1) Tell the players which are minions (and hinting at it is for all intents and purposes the same as outright telling) so that when any non-minions show up, the players also instantly know that they are not minions and there is no surprise or scrambling to change tactics or anything. (Note: the DM should mention when obviously different creatures, race, weapons, whatever, show up).

2) Do not tell the players which are minions and let them figure it out on their own gradually so that when any non-minions show up, the players do not necessarily know that they are not minions and there is surprise when the Scorching Burst doesn't even slow them down. Opps. We thought the Wizard and Rogue were covering that flank, but guess what.

I just don't understand the concept of walking through encounters with a boatload of knowledge as being considered more entertaining than the alternative. It's not that the PCs should have zero knowledge, it's that they shouldn't have metagaming knowledge like which foes have 1 hit point. No more than they should know which foes have AC 17 and which have AC 22 if both foes are in chainmail.

 

[keterys]

I don't see where a player using an Encounter area or close power to take out a bunch of minons or even using a Daily area or close power to take out a bunch of minions is the DM being "antagonistic".

Who said they were area or close powers? What if it's "Lasting Threat" or "Lead the Attack" to come from a far worse case perspective?

There are many powers that are almost tailor made to be used with minions, like Cleave, Sure Strike, while there are others that are silly to use on them, like Reaping Strike. Much like the decision about whether to use Fort-based or Will-based powers against the Tarrasque.

Stunning the PCs is a lot more of a gotcha and unfun than this and more than 10% of all creatures can stun.

Stun is pretty unfun. Almost half the creatures that can stun are dragons, so that's somewhat predictable and a little less egregious, but sure - don't use stun more than 10% of the time, but sometimes do it when it's appropriate.

Similarly, don't hide what are minions most of the time, but occasionally (say about 10% of the time) it may be worthwhile.

Unless, of course, your group is really into stun. Or hiding minion status.

Which is the big question. KD - is your group really into not knowing? Or is it more of a 'Big deal you cry baby, you don't need to know' if one complained or you never even asked, because you knew better than them (or what they wanted didn't matter, it was what you wanted).

Cause, really, that's the crux of the question. The fighter sees a bunch of scary orcs. They're described as scary. There are enough of them that the party is slightly outnumbered, but not too bad. Let's say he sees six orcs, but that's because there are four minions, 2 real ones, and there's an elite who will join in the fight momentarily. So the party is outnumbered six to five from his perspective, he figures they're all real, so he does lasting threat so he can try to take one down quickly and/or at least leave it marked while he gets another one setup. And before he finishes rolling damage, the DM laughs and tells him it's dead. 'Damnit, I just wasted a daily on a minion, huh?' 'Suck it up, you'll get it back tomorrow'.

Some groups will laugh or enjoy the cat and mouse game of figuring it out. In other groups, it's antagonistic. Which is why it's valuable to figure out which it is for your group (and not just for the DM) and why the default advice is to give good descriptions so the party knows enough to make actual tactical decisions, like 'These orcs are young and wield an assortment of rusty weapons. This one over here wears a necklace of human ears. This one here has only one eye and his spear tip is covered in layers of dried blood.'

Maybe they don't know that orc bloodrager is going to charge in later, still, but hey they know not to waste big powers on the four scrawnier orcs.

where exactly is the thrill of that threat if the DM states which foes are threats and which are not?

Minions should be threats. If they're not threats, you need new minions.

I just don't understand the concept of walking through encounters with a boatload of knowledge as being considered more entertaining than the alternative. It's not that the PCs should have zero knowledge, it's that they shouldn't have metagaming knowledge like which foes have 1 hit point. No more than they should know which foes have AC 17 and which have AC 22 if both foes are in chainmail.

Again, Chess has perfect knowledge and is both tactical and entertaining. I was just playing King's Bounty earlier and the depth of tactics I can achieve by knowing how far things can move, what my spells will do, how likely I am to destroy stuff, etc is far greater than if all of those were up in the air. That is actually a fact. The more I know about my powers and the more I know about the enemy, the more I can plan and do effective tactics. You don't want perfect knowledge in D&D, necessarily. Though even defenses can be given and still be quite entertaining.

Going more deeply - why are you giving the PCs so little information that they can't tell the difference between someone with AC 17 and someone with AC 22? That's a 5 level difference. That's like saying there's no difference between an ogre and an orc. I mean, 20 and 22 or 17 and 19, sure, that's a pretty small difference, but there's something major going on there, whether it's thick natural hide, enchanted chain, far more ready combat reflexes that let it avoid blows more ably, etc.

 

[KarinsDad]

Who said they were area or close powers? What if it's "Lasting Threat" or "Lead the Attack" to come from a far worse case perspective?

Err, so?

If your players are using Lasting Threat against one of several similarly looking foes before knowing how tough they are, than the issue isn't with minion knowledge. The same can occur against a bloodied foe. Is the foe half damaged, or does he have one hit point left? A player who is clueless might attack the one hit point bloodied foe with Lasting Threat and still mostly waste it. Oh well. It's still not big of a deal in the large scheme of things.

Much like the decision about whether to use Fort-based or Will-based powers against the Tarrasque.

So you are a firm believer that players should know specific creature metagaming knowledge (note: the Tarrasque's defenses are majorly in error if following the DMG monster guidelines)?

Stun is pretty unfun. Almost half the creatures that can stun are dragons, so that's somewhat predictable and a little less egregious, but sure - don't use stun more than 10% of the time, but sometimes do it when it's appropriate.

And to me, this is what knowledge rolls should give. Dragons breathe, stun, and do nasty claw/claw/bite and tail attacks. A given dragon color might indicate lightning attacks.

It should not indicate that one dragon is a solo and another is not.

Solo is a game mechanic term. Just like Minion.

Which is the big question. KD - is your group really into not knowing? Or is it more of a 'Big deal you cry baby, you don't need to know' if one complained or you never even asked, because you knew better than them (or what they wanted didn't matter, it was what you wanted).

Which is the big question. keterys- is your group really into knowing? Or is it more of a 'Don't worry, I'll take care of you baby, you need to know'.

Seriously. It's about handing out metagaming information ahead of time.

Leave the mystery in when it should be (i.e. leave out metagaming knowledge) and the players will figure out most of the rest in due course without the DM holding their hands.

Going more deeply - why are you giving the PCs so little information that they can't tell the difference between someone with AC 17 and someone with AC 22? That's a 5 level difference. That's like saying there's no difference between an ogre and an orc. I mean, 20 and 22 or 17 and 19, sure, that's a pretty small difference, but there's something major going on there, whether it's thick natural hide, enchanted chain, far more ready combat reflexes that let it avoid blows more ably, etc.

They can tell the difference. When two same race foes have chainmail on and one of them dodges attacks easier than the other, then they know.

The fun in the game is the discovery of stuff. Discover a secret door, discover a pit or trap, discover how tough your foes are, discover a new magical item. Sorry, but just being told is not as much fun as exploring and discovering.

Why would you want to just state: "Hey guys, this foe over here has a higher AC", wait shoot, shouldn't have said it that way. "Hey guys, this foe over here has really fast reflexes", err, that's not right, that implies Reflex defense, "Hey guys, this foe over here is a tank, even though he's in the same chainmail as the rest of them"?

Play the semantics game however you want with your players, but handing out metagame information should rarely be done unless there is an obvious reason that the PCs would know it. Like, the guy over there is in plate mail. He seems like a seriously armored foe.

I don't consider minions to be any different than any other foe from an observational perspective. Size of creatures does not matter. Small creatures can be real nasty. Size of weapons does not matter. Undead with the shabbiest of clothes or armor can be the most deadly of foes. A skeleton with a rusty sword could slaughter a PC.

By inserting these visual cues that a foe is a minion, the DM is merely handing out metagaming information for free. I just happen to be strongly opposed to that type of DMing habit.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I think part of the others point is that giving out info that points to "metagaming" information isn't necessarily metagaming at all, but can in fact contribute to the realism of the scenario.

For a real world example, I just finished reading a book ("Contact Charlie") about the Canadians fighting in the Kandahar province of Afganistan. There, the Taliban were composed of a core of professional fighters and a bunch of young men straight out of the religious schools. These young men had a tendency to fire their guns blindly and then run off, and the professionals largely used them as cannon fodder - sounds a lot like 4th ed's minions.

The interesting thing for the purposes of this discussion is that when the Canadians were able to observe the Taliban on the move, they could tell which were the professionals and which were the "minions" by their behaviour - sounds a lot like a perception or knowledge monster check.

To me, giving out such information seems no more "metagamey" than describing wisps of smoke coming from the dragon's mouth to suggest it has a flame breath.

Personally, I've played 4th ed. in the "full conceal" mode (the DM even pretended to roll dice for minion damage) and I must say that, personally, it is not my cup of tea. So, as DM I prefer to give clues to the players that a creature is a minion.

Doing so also allows one to set up the situation where the clues are misleading - the very good example of the minion officer given above, or a minion that when killed releases a solo demon, for example.

Now, I can understand how doing a full reveal may seem a bit metagamey (and to me 4th ed. already feels quite metagamey as it is) - and personally, I think its better if the information is available but not automatic. That said, the full conceal method felt no less metagamey when I faced it as a player.

For me, minons AREN'T exactly the same as normal monsters. There is an in game reason why they go down with hit - they are either more fragile, or have less resolve, or whatever. Whatever the reason is, there typically are clues that point to their "fragility" - that minion skeleton may be horibly splintered and barely hanging together, that minion goblin is a townsfolk, or an unmotivated conscript.

I guess my position is that combats are more meaningful if they mean something within the game - which includes having the monsters be the power level/type they are for a reason. For me, giving clues as why things are the way they are helps immersion, not hinders it. Those clues aren't necessarily automatic, and may even be misleading, but IMHO make for a more interesting and believable game.

 

[Obryn]

Solo is a game mechanic term. Just like Minion.

I think that's kind of the point, though. Terms like minion and solo are nothing but game mechanic terms. Minions are in 4e because they fill a game purpose, not because they fill a naturalistic one. I don't think I gain anything by pretending otherwise in-game.

Which is the big question. keterys- is your group really into knowing? Or is it more of a 'Don't worry, I'll take care of you baby, you need to know'.

You know, it'd be easier to address your points if you were being less condescending about it. I mean, can you have a conversation on this without calling it coddling, or hand-holding, or implying the DM or players are wusses?

The fun in the game is the discovery of stuff. Discover a secret door, discover a pit or trap, discover how tough your foes are, discover a new magical item. Sorry, but just being told is not as much fun as exploring and discovering.

I'd say it depends on what you're being told, and what your group enjoys.

Why would you want to just state: "Hey guys, this foe over here has a higher AC", wait shoot, shouldn't have said it that way. "Hey guys, this foe over here has really fast reflexes", err, that's not right, that implies Reflex defense, "Hey guys, this foe over here is a tank, even though he's in the same chainmail as the rest of them"?

Slippery slope much? I'd argue that "minionhood" is of a different order than "Reflex Defense" and one can reasonably argue that it's a good idea to tell players which creatures are minions at the same time as they're arguing that it's a bad idea to reveal a creature's AC. Or, that it's reasonable to reveal which creatures are minions but unreasonable to reveal which creatures are Elite or Solo. Minions occupy a special place in the design space of 4e.

-O

 

[UltimaGabe]

They can tell the difference. When two same race foes have chainmail on and one of them dodges attacks easier than the other, then they know.

So if Arnold Schwarzenegger and Peewee Herman both come walking down the street, wearing the same suit, are you saying that the average person would look at them and have no idea which one would be better in a fight?

To put things better into perspective, would a person who's a hardcore, battle-trained war veteran not be able to tell the difference between another hardcore, battle-trained war veteran and a rookie, simply because of the clothes they're wearing? Geez, it must be easy to trick your players, then. Just put all of the bad guys in the same armor, and nobody can tell the difference. Heck, give the dragon the same armor as the kobold, and nobody will be able to tell who's who without attacking. After all, in your campaign world, everyone of the same race looks identical, right?

 

[keterys]

Err, so?

Exactly And do your players feel the same way?

The important part is that there is no badwrongfun - just whatever the group enjoys.

The trick is that you're actually acting as if there _is_ a badwrongfun, and worse - you're acting as if the way that is suggested as the default way to play the game is the badwrongfun way.

 

[Flipguarder]

Honestly I think Kd, myself, and whoever else kinda sorta shares our viewpoint just wants everyone else to admit the same thing. No way is incorrect, or bad, or however you want to demean it. If people just stopped saying things to the effect of "your vp is ludicrous because _____." I'd be happy.

 

[Nytmare]

KarinsDad, prior to this thread, my assumption would have been that you wouldn't use minions when you were running because you found them to be artificial and cheesy.

Not that it changes the validity of your argument, but I can't really tell from the conversation if you use them.

 

[KarinsDad]

The trick is that you're actually acting as if there _is_ a badwrongfun, and worse - you're acting as if the way that is suggested as the default way to play the game is the badwrongfun way.

If the shoe fits.

Actually, where is this "default way" written? I don't see it in the DMG. It must be one of those blog things that came up a year later.