Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 4444439" data-attributes="member: 23240">I haven't played 4e, so I can't share any experiences about how the minions work in real play. On the other hand, I am familiar with similar concept in other games and find it interesting from a theoretical point of view.What causes people to reject the idea of minions is seeing game mechanics as in-character reality, game world's "laws of physics". It is strongly simulationist POV, which I, personally, prefer - but it's not the only possible approach.In this model, most of mechanical values aren't measurable in game worls (creatures don't know their HPs or attacks), but they represent real qualities. If I have more HPs than you, I am more tough and it is an objective fact. Game mechanics is an abstraction and simplification, but it is close enough to how the world works to lead to similar decisions as character's own knowledge.The simulationist model also demands the same rules for all - the world has to be consistent in itself, NPCs handled in the same way as PCs, all possibilities used to their logical bounds. That's what 3.x tried to do and failed.Minions definitely have no place here. The creature either is powerful, tough and dangerous, or may be killed with a mage's punch - it does not depend on if it fights with the PCs and what level they are.On the other hand, they fit perfectly in a narrativist game. When we agree that the rules don't reflect setting's reality, but rather what happens in a movie or a novel, they work as they should. We don't care how resistant a creature is, the only important thing being that it is dangerous at the beginning of a campaign, but may be killed in one blow by an experienced hero. It is not realistic, it is not "logical" - but it is cinematic. And if one plays a game designed to be like an action movie, that's how it should work. That's what 4e does - based on my second-hand knowledge - very good.The narrativist POV only demands the world to exist where and when the PCs interact with it. It doesn't need any continuity of creature mechanics - numbers only reflect what it can do in a given encounter. There is also no need for rules for any off-screen activity. Of course, monsters have their own lives, they don't exist only to attack heroes, but the system only needs to describe the direct interaction.This play style brings its own dangers. As the game mechanics represents style and convention rather than how the world works, decisions based on it differ much from how the characters would act. It creates a rift between immersion and achievement, with in-character decisions being "not optimal" and metagame ones not fitting the designed cinematic style. That is the weakest point of all game systems geared for the narrativist play, probably including D&D 4e. But it's a topic for a different discussion.</blockquote>

Verification