Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4219081" data-attributes="member: 42582">I assume you are aware that there are a number of RPGs which, either expressly or by implication, treat combats in this fashion.Thus, HeroQuest/Wars allows combats to be resolved as Simple Contests (skill checks, in D&amp;D language). RQ and RM treat combats as skill checks, and against unevenly matched opponents they do reduce to skill checks: the first successful PC attack against an inferior foe in RQ or RM will take that foe out of the combat.D&amp;D, in introducing this possibility into the game, is playing catch up. It is not pioneering new (let alone unpassable) ground. What distinguishes it from RQ and RM, and brings it closer to HeroQuest/Wars, is that the use of the device is being driven by a narrativist logic rather than a simulationist logic.One way to look at the minion rules is as an attrition mechanism. Another way is to look at them as a tool to be used to permit expression of a particular thematic point. Another way (Hong's way) is to look at them as an opportunity for the PCs to showboat. The second and third ways definitely establish that there is a point to the minions being there. And that point is the &quot;flavour text&quot; (otherwise known as roleplaying) that the minion mechanics support.The notion that one would replace roleplaying with &quot;roll to hit as a skill check or take X damage&quot; is absurd. If you aren't interested in the play experience that minion mechanics support, then don't use minions. If you aren't interested in the play experience that D&amp;D 4e will support, don't play it. But don't assert that there is no sensible play experience to be had with minion rules, and with D&amp;D 4e.Every other RPG in the world is allowed to be what it is, and those who don't like what it is don't play it. Why does D&amp;D have to be different? And from the mere fact that some people don't like it, why does it follow that it is, in some objective sense, an untenable game?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4219081, member: 42582"] I assume you are aware that there are a number of RPGs which, either expressly or by implication, treat combats in this fashion. Thus, HeroQuest/Wars allows combats to be resolved as Simple Contests (skill checks, in D&D language). RQ and RM treat combats as skill checks, and against unevenly matched opponents they do reduce to skill checks: the first successful PC attack against an inferior foe in RQ or RM will take that foe out of the combat. D&D, in introducing this possibility into the game, is playing catch up. It is not pioneering new (let alone unpassable) ground. What distinguishes it from RQ and RM, and brings it closer to HeroQuest/Wars, is that the use of the device is being driven by a narrativist logic rather than a simulationist logic. One way to look at the minion rules is as an attrition mechanism. Another way is to look at them as a tool to be used to permit expression of a particular thematic point. Another way (Hong's way) is to look at them as an opportunity for the PCs to showboat. The second and third ways definitely establish that there is a point to the minions being there. And that point is the "flavour text" (otherwise known as roleplaying) that the minion mechanics support. The notion that one would replace roleplaying with "roll to hit as a skill check or take X damage" is absurd. If you aren't interested in the play experience that minion mechanics support, then don't use minions. If you aren't interested in the play experience that D&D 4e will support, don't play it. But don't assert that there is no sensible play experience to be had with minion rules, and with D&D 4e. Every other RPG in the world is allowed to be what it is, and those who don't like what it is don't play it. Why does D&D have to be different? And from the mere fact that some people don't like it, why does it follow that it is, in some objective sense, an untenable game? [/QUOTE]

Verification