Be honest, how long would it really take you to notice all of this stuff...?

[GMforPowergamers]

I want some thoughts on this:

I ran a 4e game where I made up these creatures that were basically super zombies from an aberrant realm. They were partially made of a dark purple crystal that made them very powerful.

At level 1 my PCs saw and ran from 1 that was a level 6 Solo Skimisher... they called him "The dark Musketeer" (long story there, not important)
by level 3 they fought him once and saw a second one... but they got lucky and the environment let them escape

at level 4 they killed the Dark musketeer and found 3 of these things and ran...

at level 7 they fought the 3 they saw... but they were not level 6 solo's they were level 10 elites... they killed 2 and the third ran off.

at level 11 they saw an army of 200 of these things come through a rift. They were scared. They did also recive a special blessing just about that time by the gods or both magic and death... (it allowed them to upgrade there weapons to +4 weapons) When the wave was coming toward the settlement they wanted to protect, they thought it was game over... but they went out there to buy time. The even made eachother promise they would burn each others bodies so they could not come back as purple crystal zombies... I had them stated as level 16 minons...

see the point is in game they were all the same basic creature, heck the 1 of the 3 that ran was with the hoard... but out of game the stats changed with the game...


now, if I never told you stats, but you played in the game where 1 guy fought all 6 players, then 3 of them showed up, and you beat them bearly... then 200 showed up and you slaughtered them... would that ruin your image of the game or would you tell the brave story?

 

[Manbearcat]

game elements need to have at least some mechanical realisation in advance of being encountered by the PCs: because in gamist exploration play, part of the challenge for the players is to use information-gathering techniuqes (eg detection spells) to work out what is where, and how tough it is, in order to maximise their ability to exploit (via their PCs) the ingame situation.

Yup. Absolutely. And as you note below:

But of course this Gygaxian/Pulsipherian technique isn't about establishing a "living, breathing world". It's about posing a certain sort of challenge.

When I run a gamist dungeon crawl or a wilderness excursion through a haunted forest (etc) with a home base village/town/city to resupply/rest/sell, "living, breathing world" isn't what I'm after. There will be enough pomp and circumstance in my presentation of the people and places that folks will be entertained, but little more than that. What needs to be established pre-play are the challenge components (that you mention and Pulsipher/Gygax mention) as the challenge is the entire point of play.

What we're running up against here (as you know and I'm sure everyone else does), is a different beast of an agenda entirely.

I'm not sure when the move to "living, breathing world" happened. I'm guessing it became widespread in the early to mid 80s. To me, it seems like a case of continuing to follow practical advice given by Gygax, Moldvay etc (eg write stuff up and record it in the GM's notes) but changing the rationale - it's no longer to support gamist exploration play, but rather for some other purpose. What I personally don't have a great handle on is what that other purpose is: it's to do with a certain sort of immersionist verisimilitue (including, perhaps, for the GM in the course of actua play!), but I'm probably not the best person to describe it.

My original introduction to D&D was of the Gygaxian and Pulsipherian variety. This occurred in 1984. I ran D&D games like that for several years until I ran into a group of folks that told me I was doing it wrong. That was around 92, right around the time of CoC 5e, VtM, and a few years after AD&D 2e. They mostly enjoyed the former two but played the latter as well. I learned the (illusionism) techniques and GMing principles required to run games for them to their taste but I never enjoyed it (ok, I hated it...I could do it well but it wasn't fun). Later I ran D&D games with folks looking for the sort of "Kick in the Door" (but not up to the task compared to old school D&D) and "The Right to Dream" sandboxing fusion that 3e D&D aimed at delivering (at least according to its DMG).

I want to say the "living, breathing world" stuff as the centerpiece for play was the 92 group. The "illusionism" definitely was. I played and ran Classic Traveller alongside 1e in those 84ish years. I never played GURPS, but it was released in 86ish. My guess is that a lot of the culture of the "living, breathing world made manifest only through ardent process sim" spawned from GURPS while CoC, VtM, and AD&D 2e ushered in the "illusionism" culture. I think 3e's culture, system, and GMing principles was spawned from the synthesis of the prior two with a(n incoherent) nod toward classic Gygaxian/Pulsipherian play (that didn't really pass muster).

 

[billd91]

now, if I never told you stats, but you played in the game where 1 guy fought all 6 players, then 3 of them showed up, and you beat them bearly... then 200 showed up and you slaughtered them... would that ruin your image of the game or would you tell the brave story?

I would probably find it disruptive. From a metagame perspective, knowing the minion rules, I would figure it out. But I'd be kind of disappointed as well that the DM decided to put the ball on the T rather than throw some heat across the plate. Haven't I shown I can hit his pitches by beating these monsters before? Throwing 200 of them at us but nerfing them as minions when they've been a tough challenge before would end up being pretty unsatisfying - about as bad as being thrown in an impossible situation and then having our win fudged out of it because the DM had a particular story to tell and we were his vehicle for doing so.

 

[Manbearcat]

I use a mid-point. Items become concrete when they begin to inform the campaign -- the players may not have been introduced to the creature/item but its form and nature starts to become less amorphous once its nature affects the world in ways the PCs can notice. The players may not be introduced to it until much later, depending on player interest, observation, and luck.

For instance, perhaps you're referring to a revelation or an omen of ill portent where the resolution of "It" is low at its inception. "It" does something concrete that perturbs the world, interfacing with the PCs in some way (either peripherally or directly). The PCs do not proactively involve themselves with whatever conflict "it" is pushing. "It" does more concrete things and therefore its malleability recedes until "It" is made wholly rigid due to either (i) a requisite number of concrete things "It" has done (which establishes its nature) or (ii) "It" gets up close and personal with the PCs because they seek "It" out. When it appears inevitable that it will reach (i) or (ii), "It" is mechanically iterated.

I'm pretty sure I understand what you're describing, but, if you wouldn't mind, could you provide an example from your table?

 

[Hussar]

Mathematicians and physicists have a similar problem in that physicists try to reify abstractions. Math can state that X and Y are both true. But that doesn't mean that whatever X and Y are actually exists in the real world. Unfortunately, there are a number of times when physicists insist that because the math is true, therefore something must exist.

We see the same issue in RPG's. The mechanics are abstractions. They aren't real. At best, they're a convenient shorthand for modelling the resolution of an action, but, they are never that action itself. Let's go back to hit points for a second. While we disagree what HP are, I think we can all agree that HP measure how hard it is to kill something. But, that's just an abstraction. We don't have to use HP to measure that and many games don't.

If we reify HP, then the question has to be asked, what is a HP? The thing is, because it's an abstraction, what a HP actually is is whatever it needs to be at the moment. The idea of large numbers of HP means that the character can turn a serious blow to a minor one. At least, that's one interpretation. But, then, why does a dinosaur have 36 HD and 120 HP? It's not turning serious blows. It's not dodging. But, it does make sense to have buckets of HP. Trying to kill something that's the size of a bus with your lumpy metal thing plus 1 is going to take a while. (See the excellent short story, A Gun for Dinosaur for an excellent way to handle this)

OTOH, you have small creatures with buckets of HP. A halfling barbarian can have the same HP as that dinosaur. So, obviously, the halfling is doing lots of dodging. Because it's pretty obvious that my 3 foot tall halfling isn't going to take a while lot of punishment, he's just not big enough.

And that's where the reification of the abstraction breaks down. What is a HP? Well, a HP is whatever we need it to be depending on who's being hit, and who's doing the hitting. The idea that we have to have any sort of direct correlation between the abstraction and the effect that's being modelled breaks down under even a cursory examination. Gygax realised that back in the 70's and commented on it in the DMG.

So, when people try claiming that 4e is somehow very different, it begs the question, how is it different? The game has never actually supported the idea that there is a direct correlation between mechanics and what actually happens in the game. Trying to do so means that you really, really have to put some big blinders on and ignore all sorts of things. Which leads to all sorts of frustration when trying to discuss this. Bill91 talks about how 4e was so different that what came before. But, when you start talking specifics, all the examples fall apart. At least when it comes to the sim approach taken by gamers.

I can totally see hating AEDU. That's fine. It's a very different play thing that hasn't been seen before in D&D. But AEDU, or minions, or fast healing, isn't a sim issue. That's not the problem here. Because sim has never, ever been part of D&D. It's only been since the release of 4e that I ever even heard anyone seriously talk about D&D as a sim game. Any sim based player I ever talked to would laugh themselves silly if someone seriously tried to point to D&D (any edition) as a sim game. There's a REASON GURPS and other games exist. It's because people who actually wanted to play sim games wouldn't touch D&D.

I really see this as people trying to justify their dislike in some sort of concrete terms instead of just saying, "I don't like it." You don't need a because. Honest you don't. You don't have to justify why you don't like it in terms of how it isn't playing up to some play style that the game has never, ever actually supported.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would probably find it disruptive. From a metagame perspective, knowing the minion rules, I would figure it out. But I'd be kind of disappointed as well that the DM decided to put the ball on the T rather than throw some heat across the plate. Haven't I shown I can hit his pitches by beating these monsters before? Throwing 200 of them at us but nerfing them as minions when they've been a tough challenge before would end up being pretty unsatisfying - about as bad as being thrown in an impossible situation and then having our win fudged out of it because the DM had a particular story to tell and we were his vehicle for doing so.

The ironey here is that 25 level 6 solos are easier to fight but more annoying (just big bag oh hp) well 16th level minons where way harder to fight (and much better at making the fight intresting)

The minons may only have 1 hp but they have +10 to Ac and attacks over that solo

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mathematicians and physicists have a similar problem in that physicists try to reify abstractions. Math can state that X and Y are both true. But that doesn't mean that whatever X and Y are actually exists in the real world. Unfortunately, there are a number of times when physicists insist that because the math is true, therefore something must exist.

Well...there's a really good reason for that: if the physicists' math says that something exists and they don't find it, then some element of the model they're using is simply wrong.

 

[Savage Wombat]

now, if I never told you stats, but you played in the game where 1 guy fought all 6 players, then 3 of them showed up, and you beat them bearly... then 200 showed up and you slaughtered them... would that ruin your image of the game or would you tell the brave story?

When I watch an episode of Justice League where the entire League nearly gets their butts handed to them by a handful of Manhunters at the beginning, and an hour later are ripping through six of them with one attack - I find it compromises my suspense of disbelief. So I suspect I'd feel the same way about your scenario.

Some people like those rules and some don't. I don't think one is objectively better - but I think it's pretty clear from these debates that neither group gets over that "seems wrong to me" feeling easily.

 

[pemerton]

At level 1 my PCs saw and ran from 1 that was a level 6 Solo Skimisher... they called him "The dark Musketeer" (long story there, not important)
by level 3 they fought him once and saw a second one... but they got lucky and the environment let them escape

at level 4 they killed the Dark musketeer and found 3 of these things and ran...

at level 7 they fought the 3 they saw... but they were not level 6 solo's they were level 10 elites... they killed 2 and the third ran off.

at level 11 they saw an army of 200 of these things come through a rift. They were scared. They did also recive a special blessing just about that time by the gods or both magic and death... (it allowed them to upgrade there weapons to +4 weapons) When the wave was coming toward the settlement they wanted to protect, they thought it was game over... but they went out there to buy time. The even made eachother promise they would burn each others bodies so they could not come back as purple crystal zombies... I had them stated as level 16 minons...

see the point is in game they were all the same basic creature, heck the 1 of the 3 that ran was with the hoard... but out of game the stats changed with the game

That's a good example of what I was talking about.

In my own game I've never done the full solo to minion transition, but with hobgoblins I've done standard > minion > swarm, as the PCs levelled and took on more and more of the hobgoblin army at once.

When I watch an episode of Justice League where the entire League nearly gets their butts handed to them by a handful of Manhunters at the beginning, and an hour later are ripping through six of them with one attack - I find it compromises my suspense of disbelief. So I suspect I'd feel the same way about your scenario.

You don't think it's relevant that in the example, the PCs have risen from 1st to 11th level?

In terms of the actual fiction, 5e is meant to play out in much the same way - 1st level PCs will have trouble with individual creatures whereas at 11th level they'll be cutting through the same creature like butter. It's just that bounded accuracy is an alternative mechanical framework from the 4e one, of simultaneously tweaking role and level.

I would probably find it disruptive. From a metagame perspective, knowing the minion rules, I would figure it out. But I'd be kind of disappointed as well that the DM decided to put the ball on the T rather than throw some heat across the plate. Haven't I shown I can hit his pitches by beating these monsters before? Throwing 200 of them at us but nerfing them as minions when they've been a tough challenge before would end up being pretty unsatisfying

I don't get this, for the same reason as the poster you're replying to.

Here are the base stats for a 16th level minion and an 8th level standard (which are XP equivalents):

Level:      8 standard     16 minion

Hp:          90-ish                1 (but immune to damage on a miss)

AC:         22                    30
F/R/W:      20                    28 

To hit:     +13                  +21

Damage:    16                    12

At 11th level, the PCs will have to hit bonuses vs AC of around +16, and AC of around 25.

So the typical minion will take around 3 attacks to drop (roll needed of 14+), and will hit .85 of the time, for expected total damage output of a smidgeon more than 29 hp.

The typical standard will take around 4 attacks to drop (roll needed of 6+, and there will be AoEs and dailies dealing damage on a miss!). It will hit a bit less than half the time (roll needed of 12+) for expected total damage output of a smidgeon less than 29 hp.

In other words, framing the combat in terms of higher level minions rather than lower level standards is not "putting the ball on the T". It is choosing a mechanical framing that will make the game run more smoothly - in this particular instance, it saves the GM having to track hit point totals on 200 creatures, by shifting their defensive heft from hit points to AC and F/R/W - and in the process also shifts their offensive heft from the damage number to the attack bonus.

 

[Bluenose]

Storywise you're quite right; any roleplayed interaction is almost certainly going to be with Verbrugge rather than his third-right guard. However to me they all carry the same weight - the weight of a big friggin' axe, in the guard's case - once the weapons come out. And it's at this point the guard's already-built-in stats become relevant as well - his h.p., AC, etc. are what they are no matter whether he's fighting a 3rd-level party or a 25th.

Lan-"and I've seen 3rd-level parties dumb enough to try this had the opportunity arisen"-efan

So a 25th level Fighter is no better at placing blows to bypass the opponents defences than a 3rd level one. They can't possibly land blows from directions the frost giant can't predict and avoid and which land in critical places so the giant is put out of the fight by one blow.