Minion Fist Fights

[Deadstop]

In any event, I think it boils down to, "Is minion a physical condition which a creature natively possesses, or is it a metagame state imposed by the DM at the point of PC contact?" The fact that the MM lists monsters as "Minions", rather than having a "minion template", tells me it's the former, and that implies a lot about the world.

There may well also be a "minion template," or at least a procedure for turning a non-minion statblock into a minion one, even if it's not classed as a template. We know of such a procedure for turning a non-elite monster elite, for example.

That aside, though ... okay, you could take the minion concept one of two ways. The one that seems most likely to you also implies insane things about the game world. Do those implications not, perhaps, indicate that your judgment of which take is most likely might be faulty? Or does it make more sense to you that the 4e devs are pushing the existence of "literal minion beings," as someone else put it?

Have you never played another game with "mook rules"? (I thought you mentioned Feng Shui at one point.) Are Nazi goons statted as "extras" in Adventure! literally more flimsy than their major-villain leaders within the world setting, or is that just a cinematic conceit to provide both "speedbump" and "scene-long duel" types of fights?


Deadstop

 

[DM_Blake]

I care about whether or not it consistently models it's own reality well.

HP may be ... some stuff...some other stuff...some more other stuff...

But whatever they are, they are. Inside that game world they are an absolute and inconrovertible fact of life. Indeed it would be pretty easy for anyone to find out exactly how many HP they have by simply letting someone pelt them with blowgun darts until they pass out. Count the darts and you know your HP total.

When HP start to be contextual, it as though you were to say that a bridge might be made of concrete one day when it's being used by humans, but somehow became a bridge of papiermache the very next day when some centaurs tried to cross it.

...

I do want a game where my character can reasonably expect things to work the same way twice running.

But then 4e won't be for you.

Because sometimes HP are lost to sword cuts, but healed by kind words. And sometimes HP are lost to abstractions like exhaustion or fatigue, but are healed by healing magic.

Because one day you might fight a giant, and stab him with your sword 20 times before he dies, then the next day you might fight a very similar giant, same size, same race, no injuries, and slay him with but a single stroke of that same sword.

Because sometimes that epic devil might be a destroyer of entire cities, slayer of heroes, and an epic level fight for your entire party, and next time he's a 1 HP minion you can kill with a single magic missile.

So, in 4e, whatever HP are, you most definitely cannot "expect [HP] to work the same way twice running"

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

But then 4e won't be for you.

Which is kind of the point, the 4e design philosophy in moving toward the narrativist corner has abandoned the region of the chart D&D previously existed in through several editions. In which case how can it still be D&D and what about all the people who preferred the territory it previously held?

For us 4e is just generic fantasy rpg with a title of "D&D" bestowed by WoTC that it no longer lives up to. It's no more D&D than GURPS Fantasy is D&D because it's changed the nature of the game too much.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Lots of literature features characters who go through an improbable number of combats if their ability to survive was merely skill-based, even with superlative or superhuman levels of skill. However, when enough mundane force is applied in a short enough period of time, these characters can fall. Hit points represents this adequately.

Fair enough.

Minions represent a universe in which certain characters are utterly cursed by fate, and are utterly incapable of enduring the level of damage one would expect from creatures of their build, size, and specific anatomy. If I attack a pig with a dagger, out of the blue, I do not expect to inflict an instantly-debilitating injury 100% of the time I connect. Why should I assume any differently about an orc? The minion rules assume that given creatures have totally avoided any form of potentially-disabling injury until they encounter the PCs, at which point any at all* direct damage will slay them.

Most living beings are fairly fragile. Put a knife through someone's lung and, while they won't die instantly, they certainly won't be in any shape to continue fighting. Just like a hit can be interpreted in game as a miss (the creature was lucky enough to duck at the last second and loses hp to represent that it's used up some of it's good karma), a miss in terms of an attack roll doesn't have to mean that the attack was a complete whiff; it just means that the attack did no appreciable harm (kind of like a papercut; while unpleasant, it's in no way life threatening). For the orc who is designated as a minion when he comes across the PCs, it just happens to be the unluckiest day of his life (as well as the last day).

Of course, there's also the fact that some minions don't take damage from missed attacks. This means that not only does the universe hate these creatures, but it hates them selectively; it will keep them alive until someone takes a swing at them and connects. An attack that blankets the area in deadly fire (and thus does not produce an attack roll) does not and cannot hurt a minion.

Actually, many of us are fairly certain that ALL minions don't take damage from missed attacks (that deal half damage). It means that minions have a chance of surviving a half-damage attack (partly because having half damage attacks automatically kill minions would not be balanced). You can still consider the orc who survived the fireball to be mildly burned, he just wasn't life threateningly burned. Since AoEs require a seperate attack roll against each target, the odds are that some of the minions will live and some will die. Minions ARE capable of avoiding damage, just not to the extent that normal monsters and PCs can. Just like elite and solo creatures can avoid significantly more damage than normal monsters and PCs.

We actually don't know how an attack that does not produce an attack roll would effect a minion. My guess is that it would be an auto-kill, as the only power of this type that we've seen so far (from the Storm Warden in the Paragon Path's preview) is limited in nature and fairly high in level(the power deals automatic damage to two adjacent creatures at the end of the Warden's turn provided he's capable of making AoOs). But that's only a guess and we really don't know.

Really, the problem stems from the fact that minions were created to represent dramatic set pieces, and not to represent an element in a fantasy world. And the problem with this is that without representing the element thereof, there is minimal (if any) drama. It is much easier for me to get excited about defending a castle from a horde of 3.5E orc warrior1s (some with a few interesting feat selections to keep things lively) than from the 4E minions, because the 4E orcs don't seem to represent anything other than playing pieces which you need to hit to remove from the game board.

All creatures in D&D (aside from the PCs) are dramatic set pieces. Some die easier than others, that's all. Are you still excited about protecting the castle from level 1 orcs when the PCs are level 9? Level 1 orcs pose absolutely no challenge to level 9 PCs regardless of what feats you give them. The beauty of the minion rule is that a level 9 minion poses a significant threat to the PCs and you can still use a horde of them. In 3.x you either had a horde of creatures OR creatures that posed a significant threat to the PCs (there was some amount of overlap, but it wasn't easy to find). In 4e you can have a horde of minions AND have them pose a significant threat to the PCs. IMO, a significant threat is more exciting than an insignificant one.

Also, in terms of realism, the minion/hero dichotomy leaves worlds to be desired. In 3.5E, the average person in a Western country would be represented by a character with one d6 or d4 HD, a low or nonexistent Con bonus, and no armor. An average sword swing from a person with average strength will instantly drop such a person slightly better than two-thirds of the times it connects.

If you feel that the Average Westerner minion should drop instantly from 2 out of 3 sword swings give them a 15 AC. If you want an explanation as to where the exta AC came from, let's call it a luck bonus.

What many of us who like the minion rules enjoy about them is the minimum of bookkeeping required. A minion is either dead or alive. You don't need to record which minion has 1 hp remaining after an attack. Just how many are still alive. This is very convenient if you're running a large horde of creatures and aren't blessed with good multitasking skills (which, sadly, I am largely bereft of). It's great if you can track the hp and position of 20 different creatures while keeping track of everything else in combat, but for those of us who can't, I hope you'll understand the advantage therein.

 

[Andor]

But then 4e won't be for you.

Because sometimes HP are lost to sword cuts, but healed by kind words. And sometimes HP are lost to abstractions like exhaustion or fatigue, but are healed by healing magic.

Because one day you might fight a giant, and stab him with your sword 20 times before he dies, then the next day you might fight a very similar giant, same size, same race, no injuries, and slay him with but a single stroke of that same sword.

Because sometimes that epic devil might be a destroyer of entire cities, slayer of heroes, and an epic level fight for your entire party, and next time he's a 1 HP minion you can kill with a single magic missile.

So, in 4e, whatever HP are, you most definitely cannot "expect [HP] to work the same way twice running"

That's what worries me. I've been playing D&D since the red box set. I will be saddened if the game moved in a direction I cannot follow.

 

[JohnSnow]

That's because you're mis-applying the test, at least as I see it. I usually get labeled as a simulationist in these things so let's assume I am. As a simulationist, I don't care in the least if the game models our reality well. I care about whether or not it consistently models it's own reality well.

HP may be toughness, "Meat points" as someone put it. It may show the supernatural strength of will that Wizard has aquired over the years which allow him to function when suffering a wound that would kill a lesser man. They may be a learnt ability to keep body and spirit together when they should have parted. They may be something else.

This is a game style problem. You've self-defined your problem by claiming, essentially, that "the rules of the game simulation represent the concrete reality of the game world."

In that context, you are correct that the minion rules make no sense. But it's ludicrous to make an assumption and then complain about the implications of that assumption.

The one "something else" that you aren't allowing for is the one thing that allows a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the rules. That interpretation hinges on this: Hit points are primarily a non-physical representation of whatever metaphysical forces prevent a human being from being easily killed. That seriously alters the available alternatives posed by your next example.

But whatever they are, they are. Inside that game world they are an absolute and inconrovertible fact of life. Indeed it would be pretty easy for anyone to find out exactly how many HP they have by simply letting someone pelt them with blowgun darts until they pass out. Count the darts and you know your HP total.

When HP start to be contextual, it as though you were to say that a bridge might be made of concrete one day when it's being used by humans, but somehow became a bridge of papiermache the very next day when some centaurs tried to cross it.

That is, quite possibly, the most absurdist argument I've ever heard. You are again assuming that "hit points," an entirely gamist construct are tied to some physically measurable property of the gameworld.

Again, this interpretation leaves out the notion of hit points as luck, skill at turning mortal blows into lesser ones, blessings of the gods, or any other non-measurable (that is, metaphysical) phenomenon. If hit points aren't entirely physical, your whole conception that they are measurable is meaningless.

Can you measure how "lucky" someone is in "the real world?"

Note that the problem a lot of non-simulationists have is when they try to insist, for whatever reason, that things which appear concretely in the rules are not actually there. That a sword in the game should be capable of doing the exact same thing it does in our world. Really? Should they also frequently break, as they do in our world? Bend? Roman accounts are full of gauls and celts haveing to stomp their blades back into shape in mid-battle. A person in our world can die from a single cut it is true. On the other hand the chinese had a torture technique called the "Death of a thousand cuts" where the victem isn't supposed to die till the last cut. Should we then assume that all people have 1000 hp?

I don't want or need a game that models our reality exactly. My house has doors for that very reason. I do want a game where my character can reasonably expect things to work the same way twice running.

You mis-characterize the non-simulationist argument. We argue that the rules are a useful abstraction for adjudicating between desirable alternatives in situations involving player characters. We argue that they are not relevant when the PCs are "off-stage" as it were. That's because D&D is a game, not a (piss-poor) fantasy world simulator.

I don't want or need a game that is entirely dependent on the game rules for its reality. To me, that leads to Order of the Stick style absurdity. That's a game I could, perhaps, enjoy, but it would play more like a Bugs Bunny cartoon than a semi-serious fantasy adventure game.

If I wanted a full-on fantasy world simulator, I'd recognize four things:

1) It would have to have a boatload of rules for things D&D totally ignores.
2) The ruleset would be so large as to be totally unwieldy.
3) It would not be a fun ruleset under which to play out fantasy action adventure.
4) It would still be a piss-poor world simulator, because it couldn't remotely account for all situations in a believable manner.

We talk a lot about suspension of disbelief, particularly as it relates to the hit point and damage systems and things that pertain to those (like the Minion rules). In the end, the question is: which of the following do you find more SoD-breaking?

A) The physical laws of the game world are defined by the game rules even when that leads to implications utterly divorced from "real reality," or:
B) The game rules (including hit points) are a useful abstraction for resolving in-game conflict, but don't govern reality in situations where the PCs aren't involved.

I personally find A to hurt my SoD more than B does. If, on the other hand, I accept the game rules as a useful narrative abstraction for resolving certain kinds of conflict in a game, I don't have to go through mental gymnastics about things like second wind, minions, and the like. So for me and my sensibilities, B is definitely preferrable (and less SoD breaking) than A.

Andor, I get the sense that you, and many others, are more bothered by B than A. If that's the case, I'm afraid it may just be that Fourth Edition is simply not the game for you. Because it seems to me that the designers have accepted B as a basic design tenet of the game. And I think they did that because, at the end of the day, D&D is a game, and no amount of consistency in the rules will prevent people from realizing that they are, in fact, playing a game.

In my opinion, YMMV, and all that.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

How about this, in the broad spectrum.

HP simply means this: The game construct that registers and suggests the ability for a creature to avoid the incapacitating blow, based on its own skill, luck, circumstance, etc.

Thus a Minion has one HP, because circumstance and whatever else has made it so that its ability to avoid the incapacitating blow is that much less likely to be avoided. A person with more HP has more world/individual promise in surviving that blow and simply goes up from there.

So in a normal monster when HP goes down this is thanks to things such as ordinary wounds, slipping on mud (most battlefields do get muddy after a time), growing tired, etc.

However with a Minion that whole process of wearing down the HP isn't there since their chance to avoid that incapacitating blow is so much less likely, thus they die in the first lethal blow.

 

[Kishin]

Yet some level of simulationism is needed, IMO, to achieve immersion in the story and the characters -- otherwise it's just a game of abstract stuff happening on a tactical board.

I would say the utter ridiculousness of this discussion is well beyond the 'some' level of simulationism you are describing. If you are seriously taking the minion rules to be actual game world physics, instead of modelling a literary and cinematic action sequence trope, well, I really don't know what to say. This 'some' level of simulationism doesn't mean 'the rules and regulations of the game systems are empirical laws of the universe that everyone in the campaign setting is aware of as functional aspects of their reality.'

I really, honestly fail to see how the minion rules so mortally wound everyone's suspension of disbelief in any situation in which they aren't overanalyzing (as Hong would say, 'Thinking too hard about fantasy'). The examples of minions dying from a punch in the nose and using blowguns to divine someone's exact HP. are pretty much testament to the absurdity being exercised here.

You mis-characterize the non-simulationist argument. We argue that the rules are a useful abstraction for adjudicating between desirable alternatives in situations involving player characters. We argue that they are not relevant when the PCs are "off-stage" as it were. That's because D&D is a game, not a (piss-poor) fantasy world simulator.

B) The game rules (including hit points) are a useful abstraction for resolving in-game conflict, but don't govern reality in situations where the PCs aren't involved.

JohnSnow, you deserve some sort of forum medal. You really have a knack for eloquently, succintly and clearly expressing your point in an argument.

 

[Andor]

Andor, I get the sense that you, and many others, are more bothered by B than A. If that's the case, I'm afraid it may just be that Fourth Edition is simply not the game for you. Because it seems to me that the designers have accepted B as a basic design tenet of the game. And I think they did that because, at the end of the day, D&D is a game, and no amount of consistency in the rules will prevent people from realizing that they are, in fact, playing a game.

I too am afraid that may be the case. I hope not, but I can't know untill I see the books. Again, I don't demand the rules emulate our reality, just that they stay true to their own and there is no pretense that this isn't really how things work. For a literary example consider Terry Pratchett's Diskworld novels. This is a world of narrative causality, and the people who live in that world know it. This occasionally results in them trying to game the system, sometimes it works, usually it's just funny. Or for a counter example the main character from Dianne Wynn Jones's "Howl's moving Castle" who is convinced that she is doomed to a dull humdrum life because she's a middle daughter and everybody knows it's the youngest child that has all the adventures.

I'm not saying that while playing 3.x D&D I forget I'm playing a game, but I don't feel like my character is being beaten about the face and shoulders with the unreality of his own world. :/

 

[Scribble]

I too am afraid that may be the case. I hope not, but I can't know untill I see the books. Again, I don't demand the rules emulate our reality, just that they stay true to their own and there is no pretense that this isn't really how things work. For a literary example consider Terry Pratchett's Diskworld novels. This is a world of narrative causality, and the people who live in that world know it. This occasionally results in them trying to game the system, sometimes it works, usually it's just funny. Or for a counter example the main character from Dianne Wynn Jones's "Howl's moving Castle" who is convinced that she is doomed to a dull humdrum life because she's a middle daughter and everybody knows it's the youngest child that has all the adventures.

I'm not saying that while playing 3.x D&D I forget I'm playing a game, but I don't feel like my character is being beaten about the face and shoulders with the unreality of his own world. :/

I guess this is just a very alien way of viewing the game for me... I feel like doing this is viewing D&D as a sort of weird ant farm, or tomagotchi...

It doesn't matetr to me what an Orcs stats are when I'm not fighting it. It's just an orc. A member of a tribe. The tribe has a bunch of orcs, they raided a bunch of farms. The leader is an orc named Tim. He likes pie.

It only comes into play when my PCs fight the orc tribe.

It doesn't matter what the outcome of farmer vrs minion would be.. why? Should I have played several mini games by myself before my players get there to determine is Tim's Tribe of Orcs could have indeed beaten the villagers they did in order to validate my adventure?

I guess I just feel like the minion rules vrs internal consistancy thing is only a problem if you're looking for a problem.