Minion Fist Fights

[LostSoul]

Except of course for how they directly contradict other existing game elements. Like the fact that in D&D a 40' tall giant is hard to kill. Unless he's a minion, then a well flung spork will do the job.

A "40' tall giant" is not a game element.

Hit Points: 140
AC: 25

That's a game element. That doesn't contradict "hard to kill".

 

[Scribble]

Except of course for how they directly contradict other existing game elements. Like the fact that in D&D a 40' tall giant is hard to kill. Unless he's a minion, then a well flung spork will do the job.

Except it doesn't.

4e puts it more in line with other elements. In 4e no longer is a monster's power based just on it's race. It's more in line with how the rest of the game works. Race + Class.

a Wizard is easier to kill then a fighter.

A minion is easier to kill then a brute.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Unless he's a minion, then a well flung spork will do the job.

What's wrong with that? A spork in the Eye is a spork in the Eye is a spork in the Eye....

 

[Cadfan]

Simulationism is dead. Long live illusionism.

From a simulationist perspective, a 21st minion dies if you stab it with a spork.

From an illusionist perspective, you didn't stab the minion with a fork. Instead, you have huge muscles, and you have a magical greatsword, and you just chopped a weak demon into two pieces so that you could get at his master.

From an illusionist perspective, information like "secretly, the minion only had one hit points" is metagame knowledge that your character doesn't know. In strict game terms, your character knows he just pulverized a demon. In slight metagame terms, you know you just did 4d6+a bunch of damage, because you're 21st level.

In heavily metagame terms, you might know about the 1 hp thing, but you don't think in heavily metagame terms, because anyone who metagames that much and then whines about their sense of immersion is engaged in self inflicted injury.

 

[Kishin]

But I think that the idea that 4E is a narrative driven game is undermined by all sorts of points, not the least of which is hong's continual chorus of 'don't think about it'.

The perfect example of this: The new Die Hard movie. It was amazing; pretty much everything an action movie should be. The whole premise behind the 'fire sale' and whatnot was utterly, patently ridiculous. But the point clearly was not to think about it. Keep your eyes on John McClane being awesome.

Unfortunately, this does litle to prevent people from forcing themselves to believe game mechanics equal game reality, which is where everyone's problem with minions are stemming from. Its a rule designed to model a literary/cinematic trope: Hordes of somewhat threatening but ultimately faceless mooks that the heroes put down in droves. There is no conceivable way you can force this sort of thing to conform to a simulationist, vaguely realistic viewpoint. Square peg. Round hole.

It is. We've seen the stat blocks.

Now, it's possible there are Night Watch Grunts which ARE minions. The question is, do they know it? Or is it discovered the hard way?

"We sent Corporal Smith out with the grenade to kill those orcs."
"And?"
"He's dead."
"Huh. I could have sworn we had a 'no minion' policy in the guard."
"That's for the Elite Watch, sir. He was with the Slum Patrol. They'll take anyone."
"Oh well..."

One stat block had non minion city guards. This does not mean all city guards are non minions.

And could we please stop using these ridiculous examples? They prove nothing, and don't strengthen any argument whatsoever. Minion isn't a concept the inhabitants of the game world are aware of and can verify, nor was it ever intended to be.

From an illusionist perspective, you didn't stab the minion with a fork. Instead, you have huge muscles, and you have a magical greatsword, and you just chopped a weak demon into two pieces so that you could get at his master.

From an illusionist perspective, information like "secretly, the minion only had one hit points" is metagame knowledge that your character doesn't know. In strict game terms, your character knows he just pulverized a demon. In slight metagame terms, you know you just did 4d6+a bunch of damage, because you're 21st level.

In heavily metagame terms, you might know about the 1 hp thing, but you don't think in heavily metagame terms, because anyone who metagames that much and then whines about their sense of immersion is engaged in self inflicted injury.

Thank you. This is perfect.

 

[robertliguori]

What's wrong with that? A spork in the Eye is a spork in the Eye is a spork in the Eye....

A spork in the eye is not a spork deep enough into the brain to cause instant death, and neither should be 5% of sporks flung by peasants.

The fact that heroes can kill minions in one blow should be a function of how awesome the heroes are, not how crappy the minions are. And if the heroes are insufficently awesome to slay a minion with a single blow, then by definition, said minion isn't miniony enough to face the heroes.

Simulationism is dead. Long live illusionism.

From a simulationist perspective, a 21st minion dies if you stab it with a spork.

From an illusionist perspective, you didn't stab the minion with a fork. Instead, you have huge muscles, and you have a magical greatsword, and you just chopped a weak demon into two pieces so that you could get at his master.

From an illusionist perspective, information like "secretly, the minion only had one hit points" is metagame knowledge that your character doesn't know. In strict game terms, your character knows he just pulverized a demon. In slight metagame terms, you know you just did 4d6+a bunch of damage, because you're 21st level.

In heavily metagame terms, you might know about the 1 hp thing, but you don't think in heavily metagame terms, because anyone who metagames that much and then whines about their sense of immersion is engaged in self inflicted injury.

Er...OK. So, if the circumstances of the game world lead to a nonheroic character attacking a minion with an improvised weapon and dealing a point of damage, then said nonheroic character morphs into a well-armed hero? The point is that there are game elements in the world that do not represent heroes with heavy weapons and vast murderous experience, and that these game elements can accomplish the same damn thing as said heroes versus a particular type of enemy. If you observe that a single normal attack with a shrukien (or similarly small-sized miniweapon) kills a particular class of creature 100% of the time on a successful hit, then minion status is visible in the game itself.

Really, the problem here is that we have one set of people who expect the rules to document their expectations of the universe, and another set who don't. If you don't care that what the rules say happens in a given scenario are utterly at odds with what you think should happen, you need not worry about whether a given system is simulationistic. However, I reserve the right to laugh long and loudly when your undocumented assumptions crash against the DM's documented-in-the-rules assumptions and he or she invites you to either go along with the fate your character has sown, or leave the table. If you work out beforehand with all participants that the story is the thing, then you are operating under a given rule, and simulationists who complain that the witch didn't have the right feat to craft a 100-year-long enchantment are in the wrong.

Really, I can go either way as to what people should expect to be the default route to maximal fun. I've seen enough people all convinced that good storytelling/fun gameplay/an immersive universe is the holy grail, and enough that could mostly take or leave that element, that I document my assumptions when I gain a new player or join a new game. I personally like the fact that the assumed storyline of my games can end with 'and then a random goblin killed the last surviving hero, and darkness befell the land.', or, for that matter, that the BBEGs can get squished in the prologue if they're not careful. I like the fact that the tactical minigame can warp from "Defeat the monsters and gain their treasure." to "Hunt down and kill other monsters suitable for animation as undead, and send the undead to defeat the monsters and gain their treasure."

 

[robertliguori]

The perfect example of this: The new Die Hard movie. It was amazing; pretty much everything an action movie should be. The whole premise behind the 'fire sale' and whatnot was utterly, patently ridiculous. But the point clearly was not to think about it. Keep your eyes on John McClane being awesome.

Unfortunately, this does litle to prevent people from forcing themselves to believe game mechanics equal game reality, which is where everyone's problem with minions are stemming from. Its a rule designed to model a literary/cinematic trope: Hordes of somewhat threatening but ultimately faceless mooks that the heroes put down in droves. There is no conceivable way you can force this sort of thing to conform to a simulationist, vaguely realistic viewpoint. Square peg. Round hole.

Of course you can do that simulationistically. It's simply a matter of increasing the power of the heroes instead of decreasing the power of the antagonists. When the weakest blow of the heroes does 2n damage, where n is the maximum number of hit points of a given creature, said creatures are effectively minions against the first creature. I submit Sauron incarnate (from the intro of the LotR movies) as an example thereof.

Moreover, jacking up the heroes is the simplest way of modeling such a scenario. If a non-heroic character were to be inserted in the place of a hero in a hero vs. minion conflict, it is not expected that the nonheroic character would do as well as the hero; therefore, statting minions such that anyone (even another minion) can wipe them out in hordes is a poor representation of what they are meant to represent.

One stat block had non minion city guards. This does not mean all city guards are non minions.

And could we please stop using these ridiculous examples? They prove nothing, and don't strengthen any argument whatsoever. Minion isn't a concept the inhabitants of the game world are aware of and can verify, nor was it ever intended to be.

They prove that if you use the rules we've been given, the result is pretty ridiculous. I'd call that a win for Team Simulationist. If you'd like to suggest we ignore the rules for minions in certain circumstances, I'd call that a pressing need for rules clarification, as well as an explanation for how to adjudicate the scenario causing said absurd result.

I'd also like a clear explanation for which areas in which the rules of the universe differ from ours are transparently obvious (the existence of magic, for instance), and which areas we're supposed to pretend to not notice the difference. (Hint: Mention the words common sense and you'll get a lecture on how dragonflight is in violation of common sense and therefore flying dragons are impossible, and any existence implying them shjould be ignored.)

 

[Fifth Element]

"We sent Corporal Smith out with the grenade to kill those orcs."
"And?"
"He's dead."
"Huh. I could have sworn we had a 'no minion' policy in the guard."
"That's for the Elite Watch, sir. He was with the Slum Patrol. They'll take anyone."
"Oh well..."

"We sent Corporal Smith out with the grenade to kill those orcs."
"And?"
"He's dead."
"Huh. I could have sworn we had a 'no 1st-level warrior' policy in the guard."
"That's for the Elite Watch, sir. He was with the Slum Patrol. They'll take anyone."
"Oh well..."

Why are we discussing metagame terms in in-game terms? Would the captain of the watch comment that Cpl. Smith had only 5 hit points, so he should have sent out Sgt. Johnson, who's 2 levels higher and has a higher Constitution and has 17 hit points? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

 

[Scribble]

A spork in the eye is not a spork deep enough into the brain to cause instant death, and neither should be 5% of sporks flung by peasants.

In game terms, sure it is.

YOU described it as a spork to the eye. That's a problem with your description skills. You purposefully chose something that seems ridiculous in order to make it seem ridiculous. Well done!

Ok, you're a commoner. You used a spork as your weapon. Nothing about rolling a 20 and killing the monster EVER indicated you stabbed it in the eye and that caused it to die.

Maybe you stabbed it in its artery. maybe you managed to find a crack in its spine. Who knows.

The point is, you got lucky. As a peasant, you got lucky. Damn lucky.

Sure, statistically 5 out of every 100 peasants should be that lucky... but how often does statistics actually play out in RL? Overall, sure, but in the short run? Flip a coin 10 times... did it alternate heads or tales each flip???

The fact that heroes can kill minions in one blow should be a function of how awesome the heroes are, not how crappy the minions are. And if the heroes are insufficently awesome to slay a minion with a single blow, then by definition, said minion isn't miniony enough to face the heroes.

It should be both. And it is.

The heroes are awesome enough to have no real trouble getting through the minions defenses. A commoner isn't that awesome (thuse the 5% thing)

The minion is well trained at killing, but just doesnt have the MOXIE that others do.

Er...OK. So, if the circumstances of the game world lead to a nonheroic character attacking a minion with an improvised weapon and dealing a point of damage, then said nonheroic character morphs into a well-armed hero?

Why would this cause him to morph into anything? He got lucky.

The point is that there are game elements in the world that do not represent heroes with heavy weapons and vast murderous experience, and that these game elements can accomplish the same damn thing as said heroes versus a particular type of enemy.

Sure. When they get lucky.

If you observe that a single normal attack with a shrukien (or similarly small-sized miniweapon) kills a particular class of creature 100% of the time on a successful hit, then minion status is visible in the game itself.

No, it is not. In game there is absolutely NOTHING to distinguish one dead Orc from another. They are Orcs. It's not like being a minion requires you to wear a certain colored jumpsuit based upon level like in american ninja!

Your character doesn't see a number pop up every time he hits an orc. He knows whether he killed it or not.

Really, the problem here is that we have one set of people who expect the rules to document their expectations of the universe, and another set who don't. If you don't care that what the rules say happens in a given scenario are utterly at odds with what you think should happen, you need not worry about whether a given system is simulationistic.

Actually what I see as the problem is one set of simulationists who have determined not to use ALL criteria (hit points, AC, attack power, movement, powers, magic) to deternmine what is simulated, and have instead decided to latch on to ONE aspect of the whole.

Ok so your bridge is made of concrete and the other one is made of wood... The concrete one should hold more right? But see in my simulation I've failed to account for the fact that the concrete one doesn't have any support beams!

minions have a certain % chance to last against an enemy of a certain % power.

If this fails to fuel your simulation it's because you're fueling your simulation not with facts, but with your own preconcieved notions about what the facts should be!

That car is red, so it should go faster then your green one. Sports cars are always red so my red car MUST be a sports car. Sports car are fast! YEAH!!!!

 

[robertliguori]

"We sent Corporal Smith out with the grenade to kill those orcs."
"And?"
"He's dead."
"Huh. I could have sworn we had a 'no 1st-level warrior' policy in the guard."
"That's for the Elite Watch, sir. He was with the Slum Patrol. They'll take anyone."
"Oh well..."

Why are we discussing metagame terms in in-game terms? Would the captain of the watch comment that Cpl. Smith had only 5 hit points, so he should have sent out Sgt. Johnson, who's 2 levels higher and has a higher Constitution and has 17 hit points? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

If something exists and is measurable in the game world, it's a game element. If the GM is attached to an NPC and will alter the rules of the world on the fly to preserve that NPCs existence and awesomeness, then that NPC's immortality / competence are game elements. Likewise, if certain characters are never slain by a 2d4+5 damaging attack when they're at full health, there is no reason why this would not be noticed and remarked upon. In the real world, experimental observation confirms that injury is very swingy; sometimes a blow with a certain weapon, at a certain force, targeted at a certain area instantly kills or incapacitates, and sometimes merely slows down the victim, and sometimes can be completely ignored in the heat of combat. We put this down to luck, as there do not appear to be a consistent set of factors that combine to make all potentially-mortal blows merely injurious. A person can survive a blow rated to be very deadly, then two weeks later suffer a freak accident and get stabbed in the heart by a needle.

In D&D, there is a factor that determines whether a given blow will slay you or not; it's called hit points. Hit points can be determined, tracked, and the conditions that grant or remove them can be observed. If it's ridiculous to assume that characters know about the rough theory of character levels and hit points in-game, I claim that it is likewise ridiculous likewise for them to know about the existence of magic.