its the only area you really need mechanics for... My npcs if they have been around a while have huge amounts of traits and if they are played well tons of value to the PCs
I think I will just say I do find the word "natural" to be an attempt to apply the naturalism fallacy... its hogwash.
Yeah, I'm NOT saying I agree with the full on approach. in 3E I didn't stat out every character fully either and don't now. I frequently didn't use the full on game rules in 3E, which was something that bothered a lot of DMs in the 3E days, making prep overwhelming.
What would be unnatural as anything would be anything sentient NOT fighting with a different pace and method (or getting the same exact results if you prefer) when confronted by an enemy who very quickly demonstrates they are outclassed or whom they outclass.
The use of minions is a better simulation both of the fantasy fiction and it could be seen as factoring in the above in effect being less of a simplification which all D&D combat is(than having enemies fight the same way no matter who they are challenged by) they simulate both adversaries adjusting their fighting style based on the opponent's ability.[/quote]
I
think you're going to two different places here. One is in the game world where ogres become minions when the foes start outclassing them. This seems ludicrous to me.
Out of fiction, that's purely arguing that "well these guys are outclassed and their fictional function is supposed to mostly be there to die quickly, so why represent them with much detail?" That's situational abstraction.
I agree with that, and I'm not sure why you keep thinking that me explicating a particular viewpoint is advocating it or saying that I do it or thing everyone else should.
I use abstraction, although I use it more sparingly than what I think the full on 4E style would. For instance, what I do use often is abstraction for foes that are off-screen, such as a ballista crew or a pack of archers who are otherwise mostly off-screen. What I
don't do is jump up monsters that have a particular power level without pretty clear and obvious changes and even then I don't do it much. Nor would I generally make a swarm of vrock demons.
I repeat referring to a particular model as "natural" because you are used to it and that seems the only real excuse is silly.
You mean the naturalistic fallacy, I assume? I'm not suing "naturalism" here to refer to it as being "natural". The word "natural" has several not completely consistent meanings.
I repeat again that I'm not actually arguing that anyone fully does this or should. Any of these things taken to an extreme is likely to be problematic. The spirit of 3E was highly naturalistic (or simulationist if you'd rather). 4E was very much a reaction against that and pretty much went the opposite direction, especially in its early days.