Minion Fist Fights

[Mallus]

Thus Joes existance and the story which proceeds from it are logical within the framework of the setting the story takes place in.

OK, but I don't see how Minion rules interfere with the creation of a reasonable story framework.

Joe begins as a peaceful dirt farmer. In mechanical terms he's described using the Minion rules.

Later, for story purposes, the DM declares Joe joins the local militia and muster out. Mechanically, he is now a low level fighter.

This seems like a logical framework to me, readily understood by players. How is it not? Do you feel that there needs to be procedural rules that take Joe from Minion to classed NPC, even though its easily explained in a strictly narrative way?

The simulationist gets cranky when the rules cease to describe the setting and become merely story tropes which cannot be applied literally to the setting.

The Narrative Pragmatist in me rolls his eyes when simulationists insist on applying the rules so literally that unwanted and nutty results result, and then cry foul.

The Minion rules are like that because you can't apply the characters minion status in a logical way outside of the minions narrow role as a petty obstacle to be overcome. The Minion doesn't live outside of this role except by waving your magic wand and removing his minion status.

I don't know what you mean by 'live outside his role' here. I'm free to characterize a Minion as much or as little as I like, imbue them with whatever fictitious life I need to. 'Minion' is just a combat descriptor. Where are you going with this?

 

[Lizard]

The simulationist gets cranky when the rules cease to describe the setting and become merely story tropes which cannot be applied literally to the setting. The Minion rules are like that because you can't apply the characters minion status in a logical way outside of the minions narrow role as a petty obstacle to be overcome. The Minion doesn't live outside of this role except by waving your magic wand and removing his minion status.

Bingo.

 

[Lizard]

I don't know what you mean by 'live outside his role' here. I'm free to characterize a Minion as much or as little as I like, imbue them with whatever fictitious life I need to. 'Minion' is just a combat descriptor. Where are you going with this?

That the way the minion is described, mechanically, only makes sense when he's on-stage fighting the PCs. When armies clash, their soldiers don't leave battle either completely dead or completely unhurt, but that's the way the minion rules describe it. So when the PCs aren't around, orc minions can be partially injured, and so can the peasant levies they're fighting, but as soon as the PCs walk onstage, the world changes and it's "save or die" for every participant (except them and "named" enemies).

This bugs me. It doesn't bug you, or a lot of people for whom 4e is the shizzle, if the shizzle means "good" these days. I think it used to. Anyway, I understand the narrative role of minions. But D&D has never been a narrativist game, and having it warped into one in the space of a single edition is more than a little jarring.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

It is not so much the world changes as much as the well essentially the fate, luck, whatever of those now deemed minions change.

In one battle, they faired quite well, yes one lost a arm but he was saved, and continuous to fight, etc.

In another battle, the DM decides well this guy I think is going to slip in the mud and be impaled right away, even though in a previous battle he faired well but was still injured.

To anyone in the world, that is all it seems like. It doesn't seem like he magically became weaker, he simply slipped in the mud, lost his balance, was slow in bringing his shield up, etc.

While I am not much of a simulationist, doesn't that entail it is a fine mechanic in that in-game it appears perfectly reasonable?

 

[AZRogue]

This bugs me. It doesn't bug you, or a lot of people for whom 4e is the shizzle, if the shizzle means "good" these days. I think it used to. Anyway, I understand the narrative role of minions. But D&D has never been a narrativist game, and having it warped into one in the space of a single edition is more than a little jarring.

I don't consider myself a narrativist player or DM. I think I'm just a mix, really. I know that Rolemaster/MERP is my second favorite RPG, followed lately by d20 Modern and Cyberpunk, so I think I'm probably a mix of whatever "-isms" we're using nowadays.

So, in that light, I see Minion rules as providing a valuable shortcut for something I've ALWAYS done anyway. I don't think it's new. As a DM I was always looking for ways to save time and I've never cared if the mechanics can simulate NPCs working amongst themselves; I've only ever cared about what the PCs experience on their side of the table. I know that I can't be the only DM who had a list of six or seven generic stat blocks (THAC0, AC, DMG, HP, one Save for all things, etc.) on a sheet of paper with me for the occasional wandering monster or surprise fight. I had them labeled from really bad in melee to really deadly, based on my players current stats, and would use the statblock I wanted. My game never broke and it freed me up to worry about more important things like introducing plot hooks, mystery clues to be uncovered a year later, and story arcs.

 

[Andor]

That the way the minion is described, mechanically, only makes sense when he's on-stage fighting the PCs. When armies clash, their soldiers don't leave battle either completely dead or completely unhurt, but that's the way the minion rules describe it. So when the PCs aren't around, orc minions can be partially injured, and so can the peasant levies they're fighting, but as soon as the PCs walk onstage, the world changes and it's "save or die" for every participant (except them and "named" enemies).

This bugs me. It doesn't bug you, or a lot of people for whom 4e is the shizzle, if the shizzle means "good" these days. I think it used to. Anyway, I understand the narrative role of minions. But D&D has never been a narrativist game, and having it warped into one in the space of a single edition is more than a little jarring.

QFT.

If the world doesn't feel real to me, if I don't enjoy the sense that my characters actions matter because they make the world a better place for NPC who are living, breathing, thinking characters, then I might as well be pumping quarters into Donkey Kong.

I do not feel like a character is a hero because he cut down a horde of disposable minions to show off his testicular magnitude, I feel like a character is a hero because he made a difference. If the NPCs are visibly cardboard props in the set dressing of the story, then no difference has been made. It's a solipsistic circlejerk.

 

[Lacyon]

That the way the minion is described, mechanically, only makes sense when he's on-stage fighting the PCs. When armies clash, their soldiers don't leave battle either completely dead or completely unhurt, but that's the way the minion rules describe it. So when the PCs aren't around, orc minions can be partially injured, and so can the peasant levies they're fighting, but as soon as the PCs walk onstage, the world changes and it's "save or die" for every participant (except them and "named" enemies).

Point of Fact: It's not the minion rules that say every combatant leaves completely dead or completely unhurt.

 

[Mallus]

When armies clash, their soldiers don't leave battle either completely dead or completely unhurt, but that's the way the minion rules describe it.

Well that's just it: the minion rules aren't the mass combat rules. They neither model nor describe a battlefield during war. Attempting to do so using them is using precisely the wrong tool for the job.

So when the PCs aren't around, orc minions can be partially injured, and so can the peasant levies they're fighting, but as soon as the PCs walk onstage, the world changes and it's "save or die" for every participant (except them and "named" enemies).

Exactly.

This is really no different from previous editions. When the PC's aren't around NPC's can get their limbs chopped off, suffer debilitating wounds, lose morale, get infections, etc. In other words, battles and battlefields can be described in ways which aren't supported by the combat rules. But as soon as PC's enter they fray, it's back to ablative hit points and "full strength/dead" ie combat following the RAW, where such 'realistic' effects aren't accounted for.

But D&D has never been a narrativist game, and having it warped into one in the space of a single edition is more than a little jarring.

I can see that. But I wouldn't get too hung up on the term 'narravitism', it's a bit of a distraction. Saying that the minion rules lead to absurd-looking battlefields neatly ignores the fact the D&D complete lack of injury rules have always resulted in ridiculous depictions of combat. Unless you're willing to apply/describe effects outside the scope the actual rules, which just so happen to only affect the extras and the supporting cast.

 

[Mallus]

Point of Fact: It's not the minion rules that say every combatant leaves completely dead or completely unhurt.

If not 'unhurt', at least at full fighting strength...

Thanks, Lacyon, for saying in a single sentence what took me several stumbling ones to do less well.

 

[Mallus]

If the NPCs are visibly cardboard props in the set dressing of the story, then no difference has been made.

How well an NPC is characterized, dramatized, motivated, etc. has nothing to do with their combat durability (which is all the Minion rules measure). Conversely, an NPC can have a three-page stat block and enough hit points to survive bare-hand bear wrestling and still be nothing more than an uninteresting cardboard cut-out.