Minion Fist Fights

[Lizard]

But to have another go at it: if the rules are acknowledged as a metagame construction for resolving the game (ie the actions that players announce on behalf of their PCs) then there is not the least reason to suppose that the people of the gameworld could infer to those rules via experimentation and observation. That experiment and observation would tell them what the ingame causal processes are - and ex hypothesi the rules of the game are in no fashion a model or simulation of these.

Because the players WILL apply the rules as if they were the laws of physics, if they have any sense. If there's a cheap way to create magical long distance communication, the PCs will go into the telegram business, even if no one else in the world ever thought to do so before. If the players know minions die from one hit point of damage, they will rig traps that do minimal damage and set them off with themselves in range, knowing the minions will be fried and they'll be only slightly harmed -- and they'll ask why none of the locals ever thought of using very weak bombs to do the same thing. (City guards in 4e aren't minions, after all...a city guard with a 1d10 burst 2 explosive could clear out a dozen orc drudges and be barely scratched himself.)

In short, if there's an obvious disconnect between how the players can manipulate the world, using their knowledge of the rules, and the way the other people living in the world have manipulated it in the past, suspension of disbelief is ruined and it becomes much harder to care about the world or if you're saving it or not -- it's just too palpably unreal. (And the people in it are clearly idiots for not thinking of these things when they're obvious to the players after a short period of play. Who wants to risk their neck to save idiots?)

Asking players to ignore the implications of the rules in the name of obeying the spirit of the rules is asking them to behave like idiots and deliberately handicap themselves. Few players do this willingly.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

As a player, my response would have to be, "Why are you wasting my time?" I get pretty much no xp from the encounter, the baddies are zero threat yet I have to spend half an hour or so of my valuable free time mowing through these things.

Sorry, but +14 attacks from 9th lvl minions are not "zero threat". Paired up with an Eye of Gruumsh, they become dangerous even when killed.

When I ran the World's Largest Dungeon, the final region that I ran was full of small armies of monsters - all at least 10 CR's below the average party level. Formian workers, derro, some deep dwarves, etc. They did nothing. Total and complete waste of time and I had to spend a significant amount of time reworking the region to make it any sort of threat. The Mob rules from the DMG 2 certainly played a large role.

That was an issue with the CR system. Creatures 10 cr's below the pc's don't have a chance to hurt them. The minion rules fix that problem.

But, without those mob rules, the PC's would have walked all over these encounters. Some of the worst adventure design I've ever seen. The funny thing is, the designer comments in the module detail all sorts of tactics and options for the baddies. Yet they completely ignore the fact that none of these tactics had an even remote chance of success. IIRC, it was three rounds to wipe out nearly 150 formians. Two or three Blade Barrier spells from the cleric and the problem went away in a haze of blood.

Which is damn cool for the cleric player!

 

[hong]

So then what tools do we have for knowing what the causal process, as you put it, are in the game world? What does my character experience? What kind of predictions can he make based on his experience? How can I grasp the viewpoint of my character if I have not the faintest idea what it is that he is viewing?

Your grasp of ingame reality is shaky indeed if it hinges so much on how to handle minions.

And if your answer is "Ask the GM." what then happens when another GM takes over?

Ask the new GM.

When I play an RPGA living character?

Ask the RPGA GM.

 

[hong]

Because the players WILL apply the rules as if they were the laws of physics, if they have any sense.

This is why sense is overrated.

If there's a cheap way to create magical long distance communication, the PCs will go into the telegram business, even if no one else in the world ever thought to do so before.

Or they may realise that they are playing a game designed to facilitate the killing of monsters and taking their stuff, and adjust their thinking accordingly.

If the players know minions die from one hit point of damage, they will rig traps that do minimal damage and set them off with themselves in range, knowing the minions will be fried and they'll be only slightly harmed -- and they'll ask why none of the locals ever thought of using very weak bombs to do the same thing.

Or they could just drop fireballs at ground zero. Which has been an option since forever, one open to NPCs even, and yet the game has managed to survive.

(City guards in 4e aren't minions, after all...a city guard with a 1d10 burst 2 explosive could clear out a dozen orc drudges and be barely scratched himself.)

And...?

In short, if there's an obvious disconnect between how the players can manipulate the world, using their knowledge of the rules, and the way the other people living in the world have manipulated it in the past, suspension of disbelief is ruined and it becomes much harder to care about the world or if you're saving it or not -- it's just too palpably unreal.

Of course it's unreal. It's a movie. To be precise, a fantasy movie.

Asking players to ignore the implications of the rules in the name of obeying the spirit of the rules is asking them to behave like idiots and deliberately handicap themselves. Few players do this willingly.

Many players do this willingly. This is because they realise the value of not thinking too hard about fantasy.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry, but +14 attacks from 9th lvl minions are not "zero threat". Paired up with an Eye of Gruumsh, they become dangerous even when killed.

Sorry, wasn't clear. Was referring to the above example of not using minions. Thus, using creatures that far below the power level of the party is a waste of time.

That was an issue with the CR system. Creatures 10 cr's below the pc's don't have a chance to hurt them. The minion rules fix that problem.


Which is damn cool for the cleric player!

I think you misread what I posted. I was agreeing with the minions rules.

As far as being cool for the cleric player, meh. Total waste of time for the game. There was zero threat to the party, so, it was more just a case of using the largest area spell to get through things as fast as possible.

Piss poor game design though.

Lizard - to some degree I agree with you. If there are mechanics that allow long distance communication, then, yes, it's entirely possible that the players will go into business.

However, there's a point you are missing. There is absolutely no way to tell, in game, the difference between a minion and a regular monster. None. Yes, some orcs die faster than others, but, that could be due to all sorts of factors. However, there is no bit "I'm a Minion" sign over certain monsters.

Thus, there is no reason, in game, for anyone to conceptualize making bombs to dispose of minions. You state that "city guards aren't minions" as if this were empirical fact. That's simply not true. Sometimes, the guards just might be minions. Sometimes they are not. There is nothing preventing using the minion rules for guards, regardless of their species.

Heck, I'm fairly certain that you could have epic adventures where dragons are minions. An epic level dragon guarded by all sorts of smaller dragon progeny.

Yet, as far as the in game world is concerned, there is no "minion" designation. Simply because there is absolutely no way to test it. If you throw a stale muffin at someone, he's not going to die, because his minion status depends on his relationship to the PC's.

The rules are a spotlight with the PC's in the middle. Anything outside that spotlight IS NOT COVERED IN THE RULES.

We know this for an absolute fact. The designers have said as much. THIS IS NOT SIMULATIONISM. Why do you insist on trying to force these rules to be simulationist?

 

[Fanaelialae]

So then what tools do we have for knowing what the causal process, as you put it, are in the game world? What does my character experience? What kind of predictions can he make based on his experience? How can I grasp the viewpoint of my character if I have not the faintest idea what it is that he is viewing?

And if your answer is "Ask the GM." what then happens when another GM takes over? When I play an RPGA living character?

Common sense and imagination? At least that's what I use to fill in the little details that my DM leaves out. (Like instinctively assuming that the inn he just described has a door, despite that he hasn't bothered to actually call it out- I don't ask if there is a door, I simply tell him I'm going in the inn).

 

[pemerton]

demands for consistency aren't merely aesthetic demands, which is how some folks seem to be treating them. A demand for consistency is a demand for a playable game.

I expect that if I am using a set of rules that says "Here's what the chance of a player hitting a monster is." I don't assume that it is the same chance all creatures everywhere have of hitting all other creatures in all circumstance. It is simply one rule that applies in one circumstance.

<snip>

I think applying consistency to a rule that shouldn't be consistent is a bad idea. If a particular rule works perfectly well when you apply it in a group of players who are fighting some monsters then good. If that same rule causes oddities when you use it for NPCs against NPCs then you use a different rule in that case. Especially when in 99% of all cases, the players aren't going to care if you followed the rules exactly when it doesn't involve them.

Agreed. Playability requires consistent application of the rules. 4e seems intended to deliver this - the PCs' actions will be resolved by the consistent application of the appropriate ruleset.

In an RPG it may often also require consistency in the gameworld. 4e mechanics do not preclude this, provided that it is understood by all at the table that the mechanics are not intended to model the gameworld.

As to how to assure consistency in the gameworld, read on!

So then what tools do we have for knowing what the causal process, as you put it, are in the game world? What does my character experience? What kind of predictions can he make based on his experience? How can I grasp the viewpoint of my character if I have not the faintest idea what it is that he is viewing?

The rules of the game tell us how to decide that. Depending on what those rules are, the GM might get to say, or the player might, or some sort of negotiation might be required.

Most of the time in my experience it is fairly obvious - if the GM says "Cresting the hill you see a castle" or "Your well-timed blow cuts the orc in two" you know what's going on. If you hit and crit what you're pretty sure is a minion, while using a power that let's you take an extra shift if you foe drops, you say "I duck under its blow and stab it in the chest while rushing past". If you've made a mistake, and it's not a minion at all, the GM can reply "With a grunt of exertion the orc parries your blow. The force of the impact stops you in your tracks." And then, to steal from someone upstead, you respond "At last! A worthy foe!"

There can be tricky cases, I concede. These can also arise in simulationist play, if the detail delivered by the mechanics is insufficiently fine or incomplete. I general, be guided by the rules - if the rules tell you that a certain outcome is still possible (eg you're only at the 3rd of 4 required successes for a skill challenge, or a foe still has hit points remaining) then don't describe things in such a way that the outcome in question is rule out.

And if your answer is "Ask the GM." what then happens when another GM takes over? When I play an RPGA living character?

I don't have any suggestion as to how to play an RPGA game, in 4th ed or any other edition. When I've played convention games it's generally been for fun, and so I follow the GM's lead but make my own contributions when it seems appropriate.

If RPGA play is primarily for points (is that the case?) then I would have thought that a good knowledge of the rules, rather than a good grasp of the narrative intricacies of the gameworld, would be the most important thing.

If the concern is that non-simulationist games will suck if GMed in an adversarial manner, no doubt that is probably true. If the GM won't let the players participate in shaping the gameworld, and then turns around and used it as a stick to beat them over the head with, players won't have a good time of it. But I think 4e is designed under the assumption that the GM is non-abusive. And unlike earlier editions of D&D (especially AD&D) it won't need to include the sort of GMing advice that is prone to produce abusive GMing. I expect the 4e DMG to read in many ways like the rulebooks for HeroWars or The Dying Earth, and nothing like the 1st ed DMG.

 

[pemerton]

The status of an NPC possessing a modicum of stability is simply one of those things that's required for me to get a feeling of stability and depth from the fantasy world. Bob the Villager is Bob the Villager... he's not Bob the Weak one day and then Bobowulf the Mighty the next day.

As suggested by Fallen Seraph upthread, can't we just say that the number of hit points measure distance from death? The minion rules therefore tell us that minions are (when confronted by the PCs) close to death.

If you like, treat minions as having the following rule: when confronted by PCs, suffer negative X temporary hit points until end of encounter (where X is the difference between their "real" hit points and 1). It's sort of the opposite of players having Fate Points: the GM is allowed to put multiple foes on the battle mat, but pays for this by assigning a certain number of AntiFate Points (ie minion status).

They completely short circuit the level-based design scheme. The whole point of level is that a level three monster is of little to no threat against a level 14 PC even in huge numbers.

<snip>

Minions stand completely outside the structure of a level-based game for so called "dramatic purposes". This isn't a skill-based game, if the PCs are supposed to mow through a bunch of insignificant enemies you make them lower level and accept that they aren't supposed to be a credible threat to the PCs, they're chaff.

As a player, my response would have to be, "Why are you wasting my time?" I get pretty much no xp from the encounter, the baddies are zero threat yet I have to spend half an hour or so of my valuable free time mowing through these things.

What Hussar said.

Also, how did you decide "the whole point of level"? One possible point of level is that it groups certain game elements - PCs, powers, magic items, monsters - into well-matched categories. And a minion of level N is well-matched to a PC of level N or so wielding magic items of level N or so that deliver powers of level N or so. So I don't really see what the problem is.

Would you find my AntiFate point game design objectionable? If so, why? If not, what is wrong with implementing it via the functional equivalent of minionhood.

 

[pemerton]

Then what will WOTC sell me?

Rules for playing a game. Which are not the same thing as equations and statistics to model a universe.

In short, if there's an obvious disconnect between how the players can manipulate the world, using their knowledge of the rules, and the way the other people living in the world have manipulated it in the past, suspension of disbelief is ruined and it becomes much harder to care about the world or if you're saving it or not

The rules aren't for manipulating the world, though - they're for distributing the authority to narrate what happens in the world (ie for roleplaying).

I often find it more interesting to derive plots from the universe, then to impose my plots ON the universe. That's why I have trouble with 4e. In 3e, I could get plots from stat blocks; in 4e, I decide on my plot and then build stat blocks for it.

4e is a game for those who like making up fantasy stories, rather than those who enjoy the economic modelling of imaginary worlds.

Whether or not that is any given individual's preferences, it's surely not an absurd thing for an RPG to be.

Because the players WILL apply the rules as if they were the laws of physics, if they have any sense.

<snip examples of applications of game rules to situations outside the intended domain of application of those rules>

Why would people who want to play that sort of game turn up to a 4e game, though?

I mean, is it an objection to all past versions of D&D that a high level fighter/cleric (who can survive a fall of any distance and restore him or herself to full health multiple times per day) can get work as a messenger jumping from the top of Mt Everest to the bottom, thus doubling the speed of communication from the outpost at the summit and the base camp below? If that's the sort of thing I wanted to roleplay I'd choose Toon, not D&D.

 

[CrimsonNeko]

I apologize that I don't have the patience to slog through 26 pages of replies. However, I can illustrate how flawed the "just use low level npcs" argument can be.

I was playing in a harn based game a while ago (if you know harn, kudos to you, you get a cookie). The GM was a believer in following through with a scenario no matter how things changed. We had a special sword in the group that did sunburst (the spell that annihilates undead in a radius) at will (it was basically a minor artifact). We were planning on attacking the villians temple, which was an island with nothing on it but the temple and 100 skeletons. We got it so everything was out of the way, and we were going to do the onslaught the next week.

Fast forward a week. The guy with the sword is gone, and we can convince the gm to just transfer it. The island having all those skeletons was an important detail, so he can't simply ignore it. And, as a rule, he won't NPC players. We spent 6 hours plinking level 1 skeletons to death. The entire thing was boring as hell. We were high enough level that we took next to no damage. I think one person needed a cure light at one point, and that was it. We never felt really threatened. The session felt pretty much like a waste. And the only person who leveled from fighting ONE HUNDRED skeletons was the level 3 guy who was hiding in the back. What took probably near 100 combat rounds would of taken closer to 10-20 with minion rules (he gave us some NPCs, the local noble's personal guard, if I remember right....he wasn't completely heartless about it). On top of that, the skeletons could of been an actual threat. As I said, cause they were just level 1 skeletons, we only took like 10 hits total across the whole party. Minions could of had atleast a chance to deal damage to us above the joke level.