Minion Fist Fights

[Khaim]

Um, but take your typical orc tribe. Wading through that mob, some 90% or more of them will die from a singe attack, no matter how small the blade or wound.

But if the wound is small enough, then it was probably a "miss", mechanically. Any hit does a minimum amount of damage; for a minion, that damage is always physical. Ergo a blow that doesn't do any appreciable physical damage to a minion wasn't a hit, it was a miss with unusual fluff attached.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Unfortunately, they have less hp than the damage ANY character will do in a single hit, including NPCs, pets, dominated monsters, and rival monsters. And that is problematic.

Then you as the DM, would essentially revoke that monsters "Minion-Status". Minions are a narrative device you add to a monster encounter, I don't want that monster dying against a NPC, pet, dominated monster, rival monster, etc. then it isn't a minion.

If I want to create a battle where the PCs (or NPCs) are able to cut their way through mounds of enemies, thanks to their cunning, luck and circumstance. Then those once 150 HP monsters are now Minions with 1.

Essentially, Minions do not exist in the in-game world, they exist as a narrative device that is exploited by the DM when they choose to use them. They are not used to build a world, they are used to build a story.

 

[Korgoth]

Essentially, Minions do not exist in the in-game world, they exist as a narrative device that is exploited by the DM when they choose to use them. They are not used to build a world, they are used to build a story.

Part of the problem is, for many of us, "story" is the enemy of gaming.

If a DM hijacks the game session to tell his "story", it's a tempting thought to just defenestrate him.

Gaming is about situations. Stories are what you tell about the game session after it is over.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

Part of the problem is, for many of us, "story" is the enemy of gaming. If a DM hijacks the game session to tell his "story", it's a tempting thought to just defenestrate him. Gaming is about situations. Stories are what you tell about the game session after it is over.

D&D is marketed as an RPG and that implies that the characters are there to take part in and help create a shared story. There are plenty of board game/adventure systems out there for you if you don't want to play a game that is "saddled" with non-combat rules that pertain to creating a visceral and cinematic story. Besides, a DM that hijacks the game to tell their story and only their story is a bad DM. The game requires everyone contribute to the story.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Then use Minions within those Situations, you want a Situation where the PCs are cutting huge swaths of carnage against equally potent enemies use Minions.

If you simply want to just play in a world without any DM supervision/story, then don't use Minions.

I don't understand what is the issue with having an option that isn't required but is useful for many players/DMs be a bad thing?

 

[Fifth Element]

Part of the problem is, for many of us, "story" is the enemy of gaming.

If a DM hijacks the game session to tell his "story", it's a tempting thought to just defenestrate him.

Gaming is about situations. Stories are what you tell about the game session after it is over.

Why do you assume it's only the DM's story? What if all of the players are building the story?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Um, but take your typical orc tribe. Wading through that mob, some 90% or more of them will die from a singe attack, no matter how small the blade or wound. Clearly there has been no attempt to simulate our objective reality there. Rather, what they've done is simulated a certain type of movie....but is this necessarily a problem?

If you like Hong Kong martial arts movies you'll probably have no problems at all. If you're strongly attached to the style of play in previous versions of D&D or you want to see things as being a simulation of our objective reality, maybe you will have more problems wrapping your head around this shift in the game.

Why would 90% of a typical orc tribe be minions?

I can understand how it plays counter to the "reality" of previous editions of D&D (since you couldn't easily create a creature that was both good in combat but weak in the hp department).

IMO, I can't see it running counter to objective reality. Where one is stabbed is much more important than the size of the blade.

 

[Korgoth]

D&D is marketed as an RPG and that implies that the characters are there to take part in and help create a shared story. There are plenty of board game/adventure systems out there for you if you don't want to play a game that is "saddled" with non-combat rules that pertain to creating a visceral and cinematic story. Besides, a DM that hijacks the game to tell their story and only their story is a bad DM. The game requires everyone contribute to the story.

No, what I'm saying is that (at least for many of us old timers) the game just plain isn't about stories. The whole "story game or board game" is a false choice. There is a middle ground between "My Life With Vampires in the Vineyard" and "Monopoly".

Stories have plot and an act structure. They have rising and falling action and a climax. They have a theme and motifs and maybe even an underlying philosophical agenda.

A role playing game doesn't have to have any of that. In fact, I don't think that it should. Give me a world and a dude to explore it. That's what I call gaming.

 

[AZRogue]

Part of the problem is, for many of us, "story" is the enemy of gaming.

If a DM hijacks the game session to tell his "story", it's a tempting thought to just defenestrate him.

Gaming is about situations. Stories are what you tell about the game session after it is over.

There's always been story. It's what happens when the DM's world and NPCs collide with the PC's free will. It's not a "story" in the sense that you have a defined ending, but a story in the elements a DM brings to the table: an antagonist(s), interesting situations, and pressure (there's much more, of course, but these are big on my personal list).

PCs aren't looking behind Oz's curtain; only the DM dwells there. The DM doesn't need to suspend his disbelief; he needs to create an environment that encourages the players to suspend theirs.

 

[pemerton]

"Gamist", "Narrativist" and "Simulationist" are false categories. I can scarcely utter a single intelligible sentence about the Forge without needing to go to confession and/or being permabanned from this board. I actually start seething with anger and revulsion when I think about the Forge. So I'm not going to discuss it with you.

I didn't really invite you to.

I do hope that you have fun with whatever gaming you and your buddies are doing.

Thank you. Mostly playing high level Rolemaster at the moment, but I'm hoping that campaign will end fairly soon so I can start a HARP game. I also want to try some 4e.

But I view the Forge (rightly or wrongly) as an attempt to destroy non-Forge gaming by hijacking discussions about gaming with loaded terms and categories. Whether this attempt is conscious or not doesn't even matter from my perspective.

I see the Forge as a serious attempt to analyse the phenomenon of RPGing and develop a useful technical vocabulary for describing it. In terms of my appreciation of game play, game design and ability to GM in such a way as to deliver the play experience my players want, I find it has probably helped more than anything else I've ever read about RPGs. In particular (given that I mostly play and GM Rolemaster) it has really helped me understand some of the design goals, limitations and difficulties of that system, and how to work with them to get the game that me and my players want.