Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4221282" data-attributes="member: 32164">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.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?"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.</blockquote>

Verification