Minion Fist Fights

[Fanaelialae]

Based on the Orc monster manual pages, that is what I would assume. You wouldn't have 90% of the tribe being made up of chieftains and Eyes of Gruumsh? Most of the tribe would be 'drudges' and 'warriors' and looking at the orc monster manual pages, those look like minion stat blocks to me. Even if we assume 25% of the tribe is berserkers, raiders or better, that still leaves a lot of 1hp minions.

Or you can stop looking at the monster manual as any kind of simulation of an ecology and instead think just in terms of the players story and ignore what goes on off camera. I think that is what we're supposed to be doing with 4E - creating movie like stories - not simulating reality (well, as much as Orcs ever could be reality ).


Oh, this was extremely easy to do in 2E. The plague of kits allowed players to create these really top heavy characters who could dish out a massive amount of damage, but if you threw them up against tougher opponents to compensate for their combat effectiveness, they'd show their fragility and die too readily. It got to be very tricky designing adventures that didn't see lots of character death, yet still were a fun challenge. Sure, it could be done, but sometimes I'd miscalculate what the players would do in a situation and come pretty close to a TPK. The brown splat books in 2E really did break the game in that way and made it hard on the DM. I was actually relieved to switch to Combat & Tactics/Skills & Powers just to escape the splat books. Of course, there were a lot issues with that as well (slow, min-max paradise, etc).

That wasn't really my point. My point was that 90%of the orc tribe has the staying power of a mirror image. One hit and *poof* - regardless of what you are using.

In my case, I don't think that I'd give a significant portion of the orcs stats at all. If the PCs wanted to slaughter the orc children and commoners after defeating the tribe's warriors, I wouldn't make them roll for it, it's a foregone conclusion (though I might give the more decent characters nightmares for some time to come). As for the actual warriors of tribe, it would be up to the DM, as fits his needs. I certainly wouldn't make 90% of the tribe chiefs and eyes (it would be pretty silly to have more than one chief in most scenarios), but I'd apportion the lesser guys as I see fit. For a small but ruthless tribe, I could see myself making 90% of the warriors bloodragers and berserkers, with only a handful of other orc types. For a weak(er) but larger tribe, I'd likely make the majority of the orcs minions. I see it as a way to easily (mechanically) customize tribes.

I think it's intended such that we can stop looking to the MM stats for a simulation of ecology in any real sense. I really don't think that it was meant for that in any edition (though I do sort of see your point, in that 3.x allowed you to create orc commoners and experts if you ever felt the need).

Yeah, kits in 2e were poorly balanced. Skills and powers was even worse in that respect (though it introduced some interesting ideas). I don't recall any way to apply them to monsters though (it's been at least 4 years since my last 2e game though). You're right though, 2e was much more relaxed in this respect. I imagine if you wanted to create a creature with a Thac0 of 1 and 1 hp, there was probably a way (or just DM fiat).

Assuming that the PC is using some sort of lethal attack (as opposed to, say, a rubber chicken) I have no problem with that. HPs are just a way of adjudicating the make-believe game of cops and robbers.
"I shot you! You're dead!"
"Nope, I still have 10 hp left, I dodged out of the way at the last second."
Anyone who goes from 1 to 0 hp has just gotten clobbered over the head real hard, skewered through chest, or some such. Someone who has > 0 hp hasn't, no matter how improbable that might be (someone being grappled inside the mouth of the tarrasque).
To paraphrase something that one of my friends is fond of saying- If you shoot someone, it really doesn't matter where you hit them or what caliber bullet you use; if they aren't unconscious, most people will still just lie down and complain. IMO, hp is essentially just a way of turning a hit into a (near) miss, and minions are just those unlucky guys who, for whatever myriad reasons IC and for the sake of the DM's ease OOC, don't get these "get out of hit free" cards... er, points.

 

[robertliguori]

If you insist on treating hit points as a measure of the ingame property of physical durability then you will find the minion rules hard to come at. Perhaps try Rolemaster, in which hit point totals really do represent physical durability.

But if, in accordance with 4e's development of the description of hit points that D&D has always used (a bit of luck, a bit of skill, a bit of constitution), you treat NPC hit points as a measure of the metagame property of capacity to stand up to blows from the PCs (as Fallen Seraph has emphasised, when PCs hit minions they don't merely cut them, they behead, disembowel or otherwise fatally dispatch them) then you will find your problems go away - when no PCs are involved you don't need hit points at all, and can resolve the conflict between the guards and the orcs however you care to (perhaps using wargaming rules if that's really your thing - I think that's how they did it in OD&D).

This is mostly true, except that it (like Gygax's essay on hit points in the 1st ed DMG) suggests that "luck" is an ingame property. I think that "luck" in this sense (and hence the hit points mechanic) is much better thought of as a metagame device, analogous to Hero Points or Fate Points in systems like HeroWars or OGL Conan. Hit points don't represent anything in game - rather, they set a metagame constraint on the narration. This then gives us a certain flexibility: we can describe both the 1 hp 9th level Minion and the 100 hp 9th level PC fighter as buff and butch, and we can describe the same fighter reduced to 1 hp as being on his or her last legs, without committing ourselves to the sort of inconsistency that would arise if we thought "9th level, 1 hp remaining" actually reprsented some property of characters in the gameworld.

Point the first: elements that exist within the gameworld and are accessable and modifyable aren't metagame elements; they're game elements. HP can be used as an importance flag to the GM, but in addition to serving such a task, they also track an in-game element, which represents how hard it is to break a person or object with damage.

Now, you're welcome to simply ignore this set of rules, and substitute the 'hit points only apply to attacks from players'. However, inconsistencies between what the players do and what happens externally in the world will be rapidly noted. Take, for example, a giant knocking down a castle door the PCs are defending. If the PCs have traded blows with a comparable giant before, and know how hard it hits, then they should have an expectation that blow from giant can destroy big door, and if they can replicate blow from giant, they can destroy big doors themselves. So, what happens when the GMs narrative hinges on the players being unable to destroy the door, then the PCs have an expectation that they should be able to and some of the players decide that the epic challenge against the enemy stronghold should be more of a showing-off-exercise? The GM can say "Sorry, I intended for the stronghold to be more of a challenge, so you can't do that. You must struggle against great odds to gain entrance. Nothing else will work." This will often get you upset players. You can cheat, and simply prevent effects that should allow entry from succeeding without explicitly stating what you're doing; unless you have absolutely wonderful justifications on-hand, this will be even more annoying than the first case. Physical durability is a property of creatures and objects in the world; treating PCs as a special case and otherwise winging it according to story needs can be consistent, but why bother with the headaches? Simply assume that the numbers are descriptive, examine them according to the situation, and if they are not to your liking, change the situation ("This wall is too durable/fragile. Now, instead of it's given description, it's old and crumbling/hewn of great blocks of stone, and probably reinforced underneath.")

You seem to be equating "story" with "railroading". Some people play RPGs so that they can, in play, contribute to the development of thematically interesting story. In this sort of play, the role of the GM is to provide adversity and to provide opportunities for those thematically interesting statements to be made by the players via the mechanism of play. Minions can allow for this; they are not essential to it, but (given the sort of story-telling one might try to use D&D to facilitate) they can help.

OK. Let's talk about that thematically interesting story. One of the constant features of D&D up until 4E has been the advancement of characters from the level of just-above-average to superhuman levels of competence and ability, driven not by their breeding, or because they were chosen by the gods, but because those characters chose to set out and have adventures (and didn't die of adventuring hazards). The suggestion that any turnip-farmer or street urchin could take up study of the sword or discover a previously-unknown talent for sorcery and having the theoretical possibility of propelling themselves to grand champion or archmage status is a thematic statement. Minions flatly contradict this statement; a universe with minions is a universe in which certain characters exist only to provide a momentary speedbump for other, more important characters. Moreover, the specific implementation of minions in 4E only produces acceptable narrative results if the characters are prevented from thinking too hard about how the minions interact with the world, and as far as I'm concerned, stories that rely on characters not drawing logical conclusions (when it is appropriate for them to draw said conclusions) are like games that rely on fake difficulty.

I also like a story that emerges from play, although not one generated by the rules but rather one generated by the players making thematically interesting choices for their characters (and so guided more by metagame concerns than by rules that model ingame processes).

I'm not saying that one approach is or isn't better than the other. I'm just pointing out that 1 hit point minions aren't (as Korgoth asserted) an obstacle to meaningful play.

"There is a world. Elements in the world act in consistent ways. Characters that act on their perception of how the world is (or should be) contrary to how the world actually works tend to get smacked down hard. Characters that take the time to understand the world can often leverage that understanding into power." is a theme. However, just as heroism in the face of adversity requires adversity in order to be explored, the above theme requires a consistent world, with well-defined consequences for various choices.

I'd personally say that any game based on thematic interaction that didn't include the above theme is not a game I'd personally have any interest in. Others' mileage may vary, of course.

 

[LostSoul]

Point the first: elements that exist within the gameworld and are accessable and modifyable aren't metagame elements; they're game elements. HP can be used as an importance flag to the GM, but in addition to serving such a task, they also track an in-game element, which represents how hard it is to break a person or object with damage.

Elements only exist in the gameworld if the group says that the do. HP, at any time, may or may not be an in-game element.

They are always a "metagame" element - a feature of the rules that allow you to resolve in-game conflicts at the table.

However, inconsistencies between what the players do and what happens externally in the world will be rapidly noted. Take, for example, a giant knocking down a castle door the PCs are defending. If the PCs have traded blows with a comparable giant before, and know how hard it hits, then they should have an expectation that blow from giant can destroy big door, and if they can replicate blow from giant, they can destroy big doors themselves. So, what happens when the GMs narrative hinges on the players being unable to destroy the door, then the PCs have an expectation that they should be able to and some of the players decide that the epic challenge against the enemy stronghold should be more of a showing-off-exercise?

What happens is that the players (including the DM), if they can agree to use the game's rules, use the game's rules to resolve what happens in-game.

If they can't agree to use the game's rules, then I guess they'll have to go for beers and talk it over.

"There is a world. Elements in the world act in consistent ways. Characters that act on their perception of how the world is (or should be) contrary to how the world actually works tend to get smacked down hard. Characters that take the time to understand the world can often leverage that understanding into power." is a theme.

If the game makes the answer to that question ("Does struggling to make the world work the way you want it to lead to success or does it break you?") for you, before the game starts, we're not talking about narrativst play.

 

[Cadfan]

One of the constant features of D&D up until 4E has been the advancement of characters from the level of just-above-average to superhuman levels of competence and ability, driven not by their breeding, or because they were chosen by the gods, but because those characters chose to set out and have adventures (and didn't die of adventuring hazards). The suggestion that any turnip-farmer or street urchin could take up study of the sword or discover a previously-unknown talent for sorcery and having the theoretical possibility of propelling themselves to grand champion or archmage status is a thematic statement. Minions flatly contradict this statement; a universe with minions is a universe in which certain characters exist only to provide a momentary speedbump for other, more important characters.

I agree with some of what you wrote, particularly the section regarding how a DM should make efforts to ensure that the descriptive nature of the gameworld matches the statistical values with which the players interact. HP are a mechanic for interacting with the game world, but because the gameworld exists primarily as words, the words should describe something that matches the game mechanic that handles conflict resolution as well as possible.

But the statement above that I put into bold is absolutely wrong. Its not only wrong, its nonsensical. It mixes PCs and NPCs into the same pot. You are essentially arguing that unless every NPC has the intrinsic mechanical ability to become a PC, the game cannot model a world in which a PC can become a PC. That's nuts.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Wait a minute, who said ALL minions have 1 HP? Is it certified?
I don't know if it was a fan-made Minion or a previewd one, but I certainly saw a minion with higher HP at a higher level. If this isn't the case, It's badly designed.
Why shouldn't a mook's HP scale like all the rest, in a way that pretty much ensures an appropriate level PC will slay it in one hit most of the times, while a lower level PC would find it a bit difficult?

I know there are some playtest stats for creatures floating around the net. Be careful. Some of the stats from DDXP are wrong. So are some of the stats from the backs of D&D Minis cards. Rules change due to playtesting and not all playtesters had the most recent version of the rules at all times. Plus, the D&D mini cards had to be at the printers rather early in order to come out on time.

As much as I hate to throw doubt on everything people think they know. There are even some preview articles from a while back that are now completely wrong. Things change. Just keep that in mind.

As for minions, the idea is that they HAVE hitpoints. Since hitpoints are an abstraction of luck and a number of other factors, it isn't that they are weaker than other creatures, it is simply that they are the ones destined to die quickly in any combat.

How quickly? As soon as they get hit. It is a probability mechanic. Not a mechanic for tracking how tough someone is.

Keep in mind that hitting a high level minion requires a nat 20 in most cases and it has the ability to hit you on a 2 for most, if not all of your hitpoints.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

But the statement above that I put into bold is absolutely wrong. Its not only wrong, its nonsensical. It mixes PCs and NPCs into the same pot. You are essentially arguing that unless every NPC has the intrinsic mechanical ability to become a PC, the game cannot model a world in which a PC can become a PC. That's nuts.

What separates your turnip farming pre-1st level PC from the turnip farming pre-1st level* NPC from the next farm?

In other words, do PCs have midichlorians, and that is the only difference?

*and apparently 'unable to achieve first level' as well

 

[AZRogue]

Minions solve the problem of having many multiple weak monsters (mooks) attacking the PCs. Before this could be done by throwing multiple low-level monsters at them that posed no threat. Now, a DM can throw multiple minions that DO represent a threat, especially together, while still retaining their ability to blow up on contact for maximum "I'm conan" effect.

At least those who don't like Minions can simply choose another monster entry.

 

[pemerton]

Point the first: elements that exist within the gameworld and are accessable and modifyable aren't metagame elements; they're game elements. HP can be used as an importance flag to the GM, but in addition to serving such a task, they also track an in-game element, which represents how hard it is to break a person or object with damage.

Hit points don't exist in the gameworld, do they? They're a metagame device for adjudicating certain ingame phenomena such as being healed by a priest, being roused by a commander, gathering one's second wind, dodging a blow, enjoying the blessing of the fates.

Minions, poor souls, rarely gain the benefit of any of these things. That's what the 1 hit point on their stat sheet tells us. It tells us nothing about their physical durability - for all we know they are championship bodybuilders doomed to ill-luck.

Physical durability is a property of creatures and objects in the world; treating PCs as a special case and otherwise winging it according to story needs can be consistent, but why bother with the headaches? Simply assume that the numbers are descriptive

<snip>

the specific implementation of minions in 4E only produces acceptable narrative results if the characters are prevented from thinking too hard about how the minions interact with the world

Physical durability is a property, yes. But the game mechanics do not model it (at least, not for creatures. We haven't seen object rules yet, as far as I know).

Thinking about how minions interact with the world is easy - this thread is full of examples of it. Problems only arise if you treat the game mechanics in a way that they are almost certainly not intended to be treated, namely, as a model of some ingame property.

If you choose to interpret hit points as a measure of the ingame property of durability, then go to town. You will get silly results, like high level wizards being more durable than your typical stone statue, and minions being more vulnerable than your typical housecat, and warlord "healing" will make no sense, and on the whole the game mechanics will deliver a bizarre gameworld. But maybe that's the game you want to play.

Take, for example, a giant knocking down a castle door the PCs are defending. If the PCs have traded blows with a comparable giant before, and know how hard it hits, then they should have an expectation that blow from giant can destroy big door, and if they can replicate blow from giant, they can destroy big doors themselves.

Given that PCs are less than half the height of most giants, why would they be able to replicate the blows of giants? And if they are (eg by casting shapechange) then why wouldn't they be able to break down the doors. The issue you are attempting to raise is not to do with the application of the hit point mechanic, but rather with ingame consistency.

So, what happens when the GMs narrative hinges on the players being unable to destroy the door, then the PCs have an expectation that they should be able to and some of the players decide that the epic challenge against the enemy stronghold should be more of a showing-off-exercise?

Then the GM may be railroading, and/or the players may be annoying. As Lost Soul said above, if they can't agree on how the game is to be played maybe they need to go off and have a chat about it. If they can agree, they use the mechanics to resolve the situation. But this tells us nothing about the connection between hit points rules and ingame realities.

The suggestion that any turnip-farmer or street urchin could take up study of the sword or discover a previously-unknown talent for sorcery and having the theoretical possibility of propelling themselves to grand champion or archmage status is a thematic statement. Minions flatly contradict this statement; a universe with minions is a universe in which certain characters exist only to provide a momentary speedbump for other, more important characters.

Nothing in the rules says that an NPC currently statted as a minion can't be restatted as a PC, as far as I'm aware.

"There is a world. Elements in the world act in consistent ways. Characters that act on their perception of how the world is (or should be) contrary to how the world actually works tend to get smacked down hard. Characters that take the time to understand the world can often leverage that understanding into power." is a theme. However, just as heroism in the face of adversity requires adversity in order to be explored, the above theme requires a consistent world, with well-defined consequences for various choices.

Nothing about that them requires simulationist mechanics, as far as I can see. In fact, given the role that dice play in most purist-for-system games, there is actually no guarantee that a world-defying character won't get lucky and win! Conversely, of RPGs that I'm familiar with one that places the most emphasis on leveraging knowledge of the world's workings into power is HeroWars/Quest, and its mechanics are narrativist (not unlike skill challenges), not simulationist.

What separates your turnip farming pre-1st level PC from the turnip farming pre-1st level* NPC from the next farm?

In other words, do PCs have midichlorians, and that is the only difference?

Nothing seperates them in the gameworld except for the fact that the NPC hasn't actually done it yet, and probably never will.

The mechanical privileges of PCs are a metagame device to make the game fun for the players. If you want to play a different (perhaps grittier) sort of game, RQ, RM, E6, Pathfinder etc are still all in print.

 

[D.Shaffer]

To me, a minion's 1 HP is DM shorthand for 'This creature is designing to go down with one solid hit by the PC's. It DOES have an actual HP total, but it's not really high enough to bother recording as that solid hit is going to knock it from full HP to 0 anyways.' In fact, I remember seeing a Developer post stating that was the exact intention, although I cant seem to find it now.

The way I see it, if you dont like the shorthand/handwave, you just need to figure out the avg damage level of characters of the level they're expected to go against and just insert that.

 

[Mallus]

What separates your turnip farming pre-1st level PC from the turnip farming pre-1st level* NPC from the next farm?

I play the PC and the DM plays the NPC. Did that need clarification?

In other words, do PCs have midichlorians, and that is the only difference?

What does George Lucas's unfortunate descent into early senile dementia have to do this?