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

[Nifft]

"You require an argument"
"So do you"
"my idea isn't crazy"
"how does that mean i require an argument?"
"You said I require an argument."

I believe thats what we just did.

I meant "so do you" in the sense that I don't understand why I need one, and it seems just as likely that you need one.

I do believe we've strayed into territory so general, it cannot be topical, no matter what the thread is about.

I would suggest the thread may have reached as useful a conclusion as it can.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Flipguarder]

maybe for you, i still wanna talk about.... *cough* was it paladin paragon paths?

 

[Turtlejay]

dood, Hospitaler all the way, what's there too talk aboot?!

Jay

 

[KarinsDad]

My point was that you need a better reason than 'It's metagamey' to justify hidden information, when the information you expose is equally as 'metagamey.'

'It's not RAW' doesn't even apply; the DMG suggests that you play your encounters as an open book. That much information should be made available, and that hidden information should be things that are -actual- hidden items. Traps are hidden. A brute is generally not.

So, as I said... you need a reason for hidden information other than "I don't like minions" and "I don't like monster knowledge checks" and "I don't like the suggestions given to me by the DMG or the designers of the game itself" in order to justify it.

"It's metagamey" does not fly in 4th.

Sure it does. That poster asked why some people think it is metagamey and I gave him the reason. It's information beyond what the PHB indicates and the DMG suggests handing out as RAW.

Metagamey is when the players make decisions based on game mechanics information that the PC and hence player should not have. Players should not have information about role until actions by the NPCs illustrate that information IF EVER. The DMG does not suggest that you play your encounters as an open book.

Is the enemy leader a "Leader"? How would you as a player or your PC know?

Is the enemy leader a "Controller"? How would you as a player or your PC know?

Just because an NPC uses a power that Stuns does not make that NPC a Controller. Most Dragons are not Controllers, but most of them Stun.

Just because an NPC fights the PCs by itself does not necessarily make it a Solo either.

Just because an NPC is big and strong does not necessarily make it a Brute. It could be a Soldier.


There are lines in the sand and each DM/group make their own.

When one gives out game mechanics information to the players that the PCs should know nothing about, then one is playing the mechanics and not roleplaying the game. That's metagamey.

You can call it anything you want.

A certain amount of this is inevitable, but handing such game mechanics information out is not suggested by the DMG. It never once mentions handing out game mechanics information like AC or role.

It suggests that you hand out information that the players need to know, not information that the players want to know.

Therefore, within the rules of the game and the limits of PC knowledge, Insight, and Perception, tell players everything they need to know.

Roles are something the players do not need to know. In fact, a player could play the game for years without ever knowing that monster roles even exist.

Now, there is an argument that minions can create a gotcha situation, but that argument isn't very strong. Minions are lame, the only gotcha a player can run into with them is to hit them with too strong of an attack and that doesn't directly harm the PCs (and can even end the encounter quickly).

The gotcha section in the DMG says nothing about running encounters like an open book. Minions do not change the basic tactics of combat. You still need to damage them.

Information about monster condition (daze, stun), bloodied, is using an aura, sure. Information that the monster has 1 hit point or twice as many hit points as normal, no.

It's a slippery slope to hand out role information because it leads to "Oh, that's a Lurker, I should hit him with a Will attack" and the game disintegrates into an optimization exercise.


The bottom line is that even the DMG suggestions are overly generous. Players shouldn't know stuff that their PCs cannot detect or do not know via knowledge. As an example, traps. The DMG goes through a song and dance about giving information out about hazards and obstacles which is fine, but includes traps in that paragraph. That's fine as long as the trap is observable. But some traps, like those designed by intelligent foes, should be difficult to observe as traps. If the PC makes the high DC Perception roll, great. You see something amiss. But traps are not hazards or obstacles. If it is a designed trap, it should be difficult to spot. If it is an accidental trap, then it's really a hazard and the difficulty should be based on what type of hazard it is.


But this idea that the players will not be having fun if they do not have all of the information for a given situation is bogus and flies in the face of some of the reasons why some people play the game in the first place.

 

[DracoSuave]

You don’t have to reveal all aspects of a situation
or hazard in one go. You should, however, give enough
information that the players know what’s up and have
an idea what to do—and what not to do.

For example, don't piss away dailies or encounters on minions. That's a 'what not to do' situation.

 

[Alex319]

When one gives out game mechanics information to the players that the PCs should know nothing about, then one is playing the mechanics and not roleplaying the game. That's metagamey.

Was this intended to respond to my question about why minion information is considered "metagamey"? If so, it is a circular argument: it's metagamey because you shouldn't give out the information, and you shouldn't give out the information because it's metagamey.

In my post I was not intending to specifically defend the position that the DM should tell players which monsters are minions at the beginning of an encounter. In fact I mentioned that that could go either way. I was simply pointing out that knowing that a monster is a minion is no more "metagamey" than knowing that (say) a monster has an area effect attack, is vulnerable to fire, or is prone: in all of these cases, it is a piece of information that has a game mechanical effect, is (at least some times) observable, and characters can figure out what is going on by their effects.

On the other hand maybe that is your position - characters don't (automatically) know at the outset who is a minion, but they can figure it out in play. This was my position, and in that case we agree.

In a completely different vein, aimed at people who dislike monster knowledge rolls, what were your feelings in previous editions where players who memorized monsters out of the books had an advantage over players who didn't?

I don't understand the comparison. In your example, the player is looking at an out-of-game resource (the monster book). In my example, characters are performing in-game actions, with in-game observable effects, to try to deduce something about the in-game world.

 

[Nytmare]

I don't understand the comparison.

I said "in a different vein" and threw the question out to the general rabble because that question was not directed at you or your post.

There are people (or at least there used to be people) who believe that a good player will study up on, not only the rules of the game, but the statistics of the people, places, and things that they might meet in the game world. Knowledge is power, and there are things that a player will know, that can not be easily divorced from what a character knows, especially by mechanical means.

In such a situation, I'm wondering if (and this is only if you're looking to even the playing field across the entire board, not just at one particular game table) it doesn't make more sense to ramp up what the mechanics can control (ie what an ignorant player can learn) as opposed to trying to make the mechanics take away from what they can't control (like figuring out how to take information away from an already informed player).

 

[KarinsDad]

Was this intended to respond to my question about why minion information is considered "metagamey"? If so, it is a circular argument: it's metagamey because you shouldn't give out the information, and you shouldn't give out the information because it's metagamey.

It's metagamey because it's game mechanics information about a creature that neither the player or the PC should know anything beyond what is observable (with or without skills) or knowable (i.e. monster knowledge check).

What is the Speed of the Tarrasque? What is the AC of an Adult Blue Dragon? What is the role of a Mountain Troll?

If you cannot answer these questions without researching, then it's monster game mechanics information that is not part of a Monster Knowledge Check or any other skill check and neither the PCs or the players should know.

This is not a circular argument.

 

[keterys]

What is the Speed of the Tarrasque?

The tarrasque's fearsome stride is greater than that of a man, and its earth magic allows it to burrow through or climb many barriers.

What is the AC of an Adult Blue Dragon?

A blue dragon has thick and powerful scales that deflect the blows of normal mortals with ease, only paling in comparison to its more powerful red cousins.

What is the role of a Mountain Troll?

Not familiar with the 'mountain' troll, myself, but a normal troll is a fearsome melee combatant that surges into melee and tears at its enemies, barely bothering to defend itself while trusting in its own toughness.

If you cannot answer these questions without researching, then it's monster game mechanics information that is not part of a Monster Knowledge Check or any other skill check and neither the PCs or the players should know.

At a certain point, you're either making an active decision to deny information that could be just as readily available, or you're suffering a failure of imagination. I'll assume the former, in which case, that's your prerogative, but it's not metagaming to give out everyday information in D&D anymore than it is to tell people how many hp they lost when they just got hit.

There's some crucial difference between an Ogre Thug and an Ogre Warhulk. You don't have to use the word "minion", but it's a pretty normal thing to expect there to be some way to tell them apart. It doesn't have to be that way, but there should likely be a good reason not to reveal it.

That good reason could very well be 'My group has more fun this way'.

KarinsDad thinks that way is 'badwrongfun', as amusing as it is, is not a valid reason

I do wonder how many other people arguing the "never reveal it" standpoint also agree with the "badwrongfun" viewpoint.

 

[Alex319]

It's metagamey because it's game mechanics information about a creature that neither the player or the PC should know anything beyond what is observable (with or without skills) or knowable (i.e. monster knowledge check).

Okay, I think I get where the miscommunication is here. You're thinking about what the DM should just tell the PCs based on a monster knowledge check, while I'm thinking about what the PC can figure out based on the results of their actions.

Let's clear things up with an example:

PC Warlock attempts to use Rod of Reaving's property on Monster X, but observes that it has no effect. He has previously observed that every time he uses RoR on a monster and it has no effect, that monster ends up going down in one hit.

PC tells his party: "Okay guys, I just used RoR on Monster X with no effect. That means he must be a one-hit monster, so don't waste your big guns on him!"

Is there anything metagamey about this line of reasoning, and if so, what?