Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[pemerton]

at some point in the larger scheme of things avoiding or blowing through enough challenges will mean the players 'win' that mission rather cheaply

<snip>

What everyone hoped would be a 3-session adventure just got blown away in a real-time hour...now what?

Go onto the next thing. Perhaps don't work with such a tight notion of "the adventure" or "that mission".

if there's still some story left what's stopping the players from bringing in new PCs with new characterizations etc. and carrying on - kinda like a sequel.

Nothing. That's my whole point. There's not an end to possible RPGing because the PCs made their way easily through a castle.

30 years ago I GMed an AD&D game in which one of the PCs, in order to be returned to life, had to be treated by a sage. The result of the sage's herbal treatment was that the PC permanently turned blue. That's a cute enough result, but it's not a challenge to the player's characterisation of the character.

Depending on context, it sure could be: if blue-skinned people are shunned by society in that setting the player now has to figure out how to play this character as an outcast, which may or may not be a huge departure from how it was played before.

But this is purely external adversity: people used to like you but now they don't.

It doesn't involve any sort of reevaluation or reconceptualisation.

 

[pemerton]

Yet a PC, if faced with an immensely superior foe, doesn't suddenly find itself with only 1 h.p. to its name where a moment ago it had 35

What system are you talking about? 4e? 4e has no mechanic for turning the PCs into "minions" to fight much higher level antagonists. Rather, it has a mechanic for turning those higher level antagonists into solos and the like.

This is because a game in which PCs are toggled either up or down would not make for very good play.

the immensely-superior foe still has to get through all 35 of them, and so it should.

<snip>

even though ghouls might not be all that tough against a paragon-level party even paragons can hit for less hit points than the typical ghoul might have if they roll poorly on the damage die, which gives the ghoul another chance to hit and hurt the paragon. (ghouls are an interesting example, in fact, as at least in earlier editions their paralyzation ability makes every attack they get a serious threat, so leaving one up for an extra round can be problematic)

And no PC is going to give out enough damage in a single blow to kill a non-minion giant or dragon or anything else big, no matter what level said PC might be.

<snip>

I well enough understand how they work, but I don't think you understand (or can't accept) my objections to their butchering of internal setting consistency (a.k.a. game-world realism).

I've bolded a few bits which demonstrate that you don't understand how 4e's combat mechanics work. Because you talk about resolution processes as if they are part of the fiction. Whereas an obvious feature of 4e combat is that the resolution mechanics are not part of the fiction, and are not models of fictional processes, but are devices for establishing what occurs in the fiction.

This is actually true of Gygax's AD&D as well - Gygax makes the point that a single attack roll doesn't model one single bodily motion - but 4e takes this idea and develops it further.

In Runequest a PC's hit points do not change significantly over time; but s/he typically improves his/her skill at parrying and/or dodging blows. It would be ridiculous to say that RQ is unrealistic because hp don't grow with experience and hence experienced adventurers are just as vulnerable to blows as inexperienced ones. Such a comment displays complete ignorance of the mechanical device that RQ uses to model increased fighting skill, which is not extra hp but rather is improved parry/dodge skill.

Likewise and mutatis mutandis for 4e D&D. A paragon PC can kill a ghoul in 6 seconds. At the table the question of whether or not this take place is determined by making a single d20 roll and filtering that through the attack rules. If you narrate the fiction of that in a way which creates setting inconsistency then that's on you. It's not on the mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

Given that there's been some discussion about roleplaying, what it means to play a character, and what it means to find one's character challenged in a certain way, I thought I would post some quotes from Burning Wheel Gold. This spells out how I think about it pretty well. I'm quoting from the Revised edition that came out a few months ago.

First, Jake Norwood's Foreword at p 6 (Norwood designed and wrote The Riddle of Steel RPG):

So how do you play Burning Wheel? Fight for what you believe. Or, since it's a roleplaying game: Fight for what your character believes. Everything else in the rules tells either how to craft that character's beliefs or how to fight for them. . . .

The decision to solve a problem with cold steel or silken words isn't just one of better numerical values - it's a question of who you, the player, want your character to become. Every action - pass or fail - is growth. Every decision affects how your character matures, shifts, changes. Even little decisions impact the character in permanent, subtle ways.​

And then from the opening page of the rules proper, at p 9:

The Burning Wheel is a roleplaying game. Its mood and feel are reminiscent of the lands created by Ursula K Le Guin, Stephen R Donaldson and JRR Tokien in their works of fantasy fiction. It is also heavily influenced by the brilliant medieval historical accounts of Barbara Tuchman and Desmond Seward . . .

In the game, players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy ficiton. These characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities. The synergy of inspiration, imagination, numbers and priorities is the most fundamental element of Burning Wheel. Expressing these numbers and priorities within situations presented by the game master (GM) is what the game is all about. . . .

[T]he rules do contain a philosophy that implies a certain type of place. There are consequences to your choices in this game. They range from the very black and white, "If I engage in this duel, my character might die," to the more complex, "If my character undertakes this task, he'll be changed, and I don't know exactly how." Recognizing that the system enforces these choices will help you navigate play. I always encourage players to think before they test their characters. Are you prepared to accept the consequences of your actions?​

Those last two sentences express this system's version of playing to find out what happens.

 

[billd91]

What system are you talking about? 4e? 4e has no mechanic for turning the PCs into "minions" to fight much higher level antagonists. Rather, it has a mechanic for turning those higher level antagonists into solos and the like.

This is because a game in which PCs are toggled either up or down would not make for very good play.

Well, yeah, but then a game in which NPCs are togged either up or down doesn't make for very good play either if you assume that NPCs have as much existence (in the campaign) as the PCs. What this whole debate over minions is about is about the PC-centricness of 4e and how that's alien to Lanefan's view of the PC's role in RPG setting.

I've bolded a few bits which demonstrate that you don't understand how 4e's combat mechanics work. Because you talk about resolution processes as if they are part of the fiction. Whereas an obvious feature of 4e combat is that the resolution mechanics are not part of the fiction, and are not models of fictional processes, but are devices for establishing what occurs in the fiction.

This is actually true of Gygax's AD&D as well - Gygax makes the point that a single attack roll doesn't model one single bodily motion - but 4e takes this idea and develops it further.

I don't think it's a question of him not understanding it. I think it's a question of his view of it not conforming to yours - but then I think you choose to see the 4e combat mechanics as not part of the fiction rather than it being obvious that's the case and can only be the case. Gygax may have seen making an attack as an abstraction over a 1 minute round of feints, parries, and other gambits, but the 4e powers aren't generally written that way. Powers like Piercing Strike aren't described with the same level of abstraction Gygax describes in the 1 minute combat round. They are written as cinematic moves in and of themselves that would amenable to being part of the fiction.

 

[Manbearcat]

I've read this a number of times. I don't understand your questions. I'll be happy to answer if you can make them more clear for me.

I assume you understood the rest of the post and these two questions (I'll quote) are what don't make sense?

You don't think this will change your cognitive workspace? It won't resemble the mental arithmetic that real humans do in a moment of desperate choice (run to or shrink from danger and possible extreme cost)? You don't think the other participants at the table wouldn't have their heart-rates uptick as this decision looms?

1) Do you think if those mechanics were in play, would they affect (a) the sensation of play overall, (b) your navigation of your thoughts, (c) your perceptions of what is happening (the gravity, the momentum), (d) your immediate meta reflections (which I don't know about you...but I have personally about myself as a consequential moment is upon me) upon "who is this guy really?"

2) Do you think those mechanics being player-facing (to all participants) would or would not create more anxiety, anticipation, excitement, exaltation for the other participants who are beholding your actions (and are aware of the consequences)?


Whatever your answer to that stuff, could you break it down in a little detail, please and thank you?

 

[Tony Vargas]

What system are you talking about? 4e? 4e has no mechanic for turning the PCs into "minions" to fight much higher level antagonists. Rather, it has a mechanic for turning those higher level antagonists into solos and the like.

Nod. It's not rocket science. But, it does have limits. Changing a creature from standard to solo - while, for the sake of "simulationism" (in the Forge Sense), holding its XP value constant to maintain that it is, in fact(actually, fiction), 'the same creature' - only brings it down 9 levels. So, 4th level party vs Type V Demons, for instance, not going to cut it.
...I think the conventional solution is to shift the encounter with the overwhelming foe to a Skill Challenge, to avoid it's notice, escape it, appease it, or the like, instead.

This is because a game in which PCs are toggled either up or down would not make for very good play.

IDK, it might not be completely unworkable. Dialing up, for instance, could be a hypothetical way to run a solo PC, or to illustrate how the PCs have risen above their old league of foes in a more entertaining way than just squishing things that can't hit you on a natural 19.

Whereas an obvious feature of 4e combat is that the resolution mechanics are not part of the fiction, and are not models of fictional processes, but are devices for establishing what occurs in the fiction.

IDK why you'd limit that to "of 4e combat" - resolution mechanics in general would only be part of the fiction in some sort of high-fidelity LARP, or randomized challenge ("I'll let you live if you throw a Venus" - which'd be 4d4 coming up all different). And, the line between modeling a process and determining the fiction is pretty scant - any level of abstraction, at all, probably crosses that line.

If you narrate the fiction of that in a way which creates setting inconsistency then that's on you. It's not on the mechanics.

If the topic had drifted another direction, Lan might've written that same sentence, I think.

Well, yeah, but then a game in which NPCs are togged either up or down doesn't make for very good play either if you assume that NPCs have as much existence (in the campaign) as the PCs. ... PC-centricness is alien to Lanefan's view of the PC's role in RPG setting.

I mean, there's only players (playing their PCs), and a DM (playing the NPCs &c) at the table. So if it's not PC-centric...?

Gygax may have seen making an attack as an abstraction over a 1 minute round of feints, parries, and other gambits, but the 4e powers aren't generally written that way.

Gygax wrote the game with 1 minute rounds, and only 1 attack/round, and explained it as just that, so no 'may' about it. And, long before 4e, those rounds had been changed from 1 minute, to six seconds. Bows RoF 2 in 1 min went from unrealistically slow, to Bow's iterative attacks in 6 sec being unrealistically fast.

Powers like Piercing Strike aren't described with the same level of abstraction Gygax describes in the 1 minute combat round. They are written as cinematic moves in and of themselves that would amenable to being part of the fiction.

It would have been odd if flavor text meant for a 6-second round were written as if the round were still one minute. Though, if, for whatever reason, you'd wanted to go back to a 1-minute round, the players already had the option of describing their powers however worked for them, anyway.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I assume you understood the rest of the post and these two questions (I'll quote) are what don't make sense?



1) Do you think if those mechanics were in play, would they affect (a) the sensation of play overall, (b) your navigation of your thoughts, (c) your perceptions of what is happening (the gravity, the momentum), (d) your immediate meta reflections (which I don't know about you...but I have personally about myself as a consequential moment is upon me) upon "who is this guy really?"

2) Do you think those mechanics being player-facing (to all participants) would or would not create more anxiety, anticipation, excitement, exaltation for the other participants who are beholding your actions (and are aware of the consequences)?


Whatever your answer to that stuff, could you break it down in a little detail, please and thank you?

I don't think this will make it ckearer because I think this discussion is mired a lot further back on the trail.

I think [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION]'s definition of roleplaying is for a player to imagine a character and then imagine how that character will act and declare actions accordingly. This being fully under the control of the player is a hard requirement, so anything that interferes with a player doing the above is a hinderence to roleplaying. This is why he doesn't consider acting to be roleplaying because that character wasn't imagined by the actor and the actor doesn't make choices for actions.

Meanwhile, you (and me and others) see roleplaying in games as protraying the character however it comes to be. There's a presumption that the player will be making most choices, but external changes are ok as well. We see acting as roleplaying because the portrayal of tge character is up to the actor even if many/most choices are not.

So, with this fundamental difference in definition, there's no way your questions make sense within [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION]'s framework. What I find interesting, though, is that he doesn't appear to see the genre/system limits that D&D imposes.

I, of course, stand ready to be corrected on this by a functional definition of what frogreaver thinks roleplaying is that differs from the above.

 

[Lanefan]

What system are you talking about? 4e? 4e has no mechanic for turning the PCs into "minions" to fight much higher level antagonists.

Exactly.

Rather, it has a mechanic for turning those higher level antagonists into solos and the like.

4e thus gives formal terms to previously-informal variances within a group of monsters - you might have the 6 ordinary ogres with 40 h.p. each, the shaman ogre with 45 h.p. and spell use, and the chieftain with 80 h.p. that fought as a higher HD/higher level foe.

My argument is that any mechanic that turns the 40 h.p. ogres into 1 h.p. ogres is intentionally not being true to what's established in the fiction, and is thus very flawed.

This is because a game in which PCs are toggled either up or down would not make for very good play.

Agreed.

But as the PCs are a part of an internally-consistent (I hope!) setting, what applies to the PCs must then by extension apply to the rest of the game-world inhabitants; meaning that toggling them up and down is every bit as bad.

I've bolded a few bits which demonstrate that you don't understand how 4e's combat mechanics work. Because you talk about resolution processes as if they are part of the fiction. Whereas an obvious feature of 4e combat is that the resolution mechanics are not part of the fiction, and are not models of fictional processes, but are devices for establishing what occurs in the fiction.

I forget the exact term for it - dissociated something-or-other, it's been a while - but if the resolution processes and the fiction don't at least vaguely try to match up then the problem is with the processes, not the fiction.

This is actually true of Gygax's AD&D as well - Gygax makes the point that a single attack roll doesn't model one single bodily motion

Indeed; and here Gygax is in fact trying to match up the resolution process (one attack per round) to the fiction (1-minute-long rounds) by saying that the attack roll represents the best of many attempts over that one-minute span. In other words, he's taking a good approach.

but 4e takes this idea and develops it further.

Which, given that 4e rounds are but 6 seconds long, seems counterintuitive.

In Runequest a PC's hit points do not change significantly over time; but s/he typically improves his/her skill at parrying and/or dodging blows. It would be ridiculous to say that RQ is unrealistic because hp don't grow with experience and hence experienced adventurers are just as vulnerable to blows as inexperienced ones. Such a comment displays complete ignorance of the mechanical device that RQ uses to model increased fighting skill, which is not extra hp but rather is improved parry/dodge skill.

Actually I'd say that's every bit as realistic - and maybe even more so - than the non-4e D&D model.

Likewise and mutatis mutandis for 4e D&D. A paragon PC can kill a ghoul in 6 seconds. At the table the question of whether or not this take place is determined by making a single d20 roll and filtering that through the attack rules. If you narrate the fiction of that in a way which creates setting inconsistency then that's on you. It's not on the mechanics.

There's a word missing in the above which, if inserted, makes all the difference: A paragon PC can maybe kill a ghoul in 6 seconds.

Look at it another way: unless you're fighting something that really only does have one hit point or less, such as a kitten or a small rat, there are three possible outcomes of any attack roll or sequence:

1. You do no damage at all (typically in D&D this means you miss outright unless some sort of DoaM mechanics are in play)
2. You cause damage to the foe but do not cause enough damage to kill* it
3. You cause enough damage to kill* the foe

* - or defeat, or subdue, or otherwise achieve your desired win condition.

Minion rules disallow #2 as an option, which is not only unrealistic but - again unless you're fighting a kitten - doesn't give the monster an even break.

A ghoul might normally have 30 h.p. and a paragon character might normally hit it for 4d6+20. Most of the time the paragon is going to one-shot it but there'll be the occasional time when she rolls really badly on those 4d6 and the ghoul survives with 1or 2 h.p. left - highly relevant if the ghoul then gets a good attack in and paralyses the paragon.

And a side note: this brings up another mechanic I've personally come to detest in all versions of D&D - all RPGs where it exists, come to that - and that's that, using the same example above, a hit can't do less than 24 points damage. There's a huge gulf between 0 damage (miss) and 24 or more (hit); and the greatest warrior in the world should still be capable of hitting for only 1 point damage on an unlucky shot no matter what bonuses she has going for her. To its credit 4e kinda waved at this problem a bit with some damage-on-a-miss mechanics, but to me a miss is a miss and thus 4e was coming at it from the wrong direction.

The far-from-perfect-but-better-than-nothing solution I use is that on any 'minimum' damage roll - here this would be 4 on the 4d6 - you add the bonuses to that roll (here giving 24) and then roll a die of that size to determine what damage you actually did. This means there's a small (sometimes very small, but never zero) chance that anything with more than 1 h.p. can survive a hit from pretty much anything - and the minion model again defeats this.

 

[pemerton]

Well, yeah, but then a game in which NPCs are togged either up or down doesn't make for very good play either

There's actually little evidence for this in the history of D&D. Most kobolds, goblins and 0-level humans will be either up or down if hit by a AD&D fighter with weapon specialisationm 18 STR and a magic weapon (damage die +1 for magic +2 for spec +3 for 18/01 STR = minimum 7 damage on a hit and typically quite a bit more). But I've never seen it suggested that this does not make for good play.

A 7th level specialised AD&D fighter with a +2 longsword fighting an ogre averages 2d12 + 14 = 27 average with a 16 minimum multiplied by the chance to hit. AD&D ogres have 4+1 HD or an average of 19 hp and a maximum of 33. That 7th level fighter therefore is going to take down many ogres in a single round. I've never seen it suggested that this does not make for good play.

if you assume that NPCs have as much existence (in the campaign) as the PCs.

I don't really know what this means. In the fiction those kobolds, goblins, 0-level men-at-arms and ogres all exist. So does the PC fighter. I don't see how this issue of existince in the fiction bears on whether or not some opponents are liable to being swiftly dispatched by a PC.

What this whole debate over minions is about is about the PC-centricness of 4e and how that's alien to Lanefan's view of the PC's role in RPG setting.

<snip>

I don't think it's a question of him not understanding it. I think it's a question of his view of it not conforming to yours

I don't give a toss whether or not [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] wants to play 4e. That has zero effect or significance for me.

I'm responding to other claims, such as that 4e's minion rules lead to inconsistent fiction, are an incoherent frameworld for hp, etc. Those claims are false, and the only reasons being put in favour of them betray a failure to understand the 4e combat mechanics.

There is nothing inconsistent about a fiction in which (for instance) mid-heroic tier PCs find dealing with ghouls a matter of life-and-death, and in which mid-paragon tier PCs can cut through those ghouls with relative ease.

The notion that a ghoul or an ogre is "entitled" to its hp, or that it is "inconsisent" to resolve a fight with one by any means other than a series of to hit and damage rolls, simply betrays a lack of understanding of the 4e combat rules. The 4e DMG even spells this out (pp 54-55):

A fight against thirty orcs is a grand cinematic battle. The players get to enjoy carving through the mob like a knife through butter, feeling confident and powerful. Unfortunately, the mechanics of standard monsters make that difficult. If you use a large number of monsters of a level similar to the PCs, you overwhelm them. If you use a large
number of monsters of much lower level, you bore them with creatures that have little chance of hurting the PCs but take a lot of time to take down. On top of that, keeping track of the actions of so many monsters is a headache.

Minions are designed to help fill out an encounter, but they go down quickly.​

In the fiction, an orc is an orc is an orc. Minions are a mechanical technique intended to facilitate a certain sort of action occurring in the fiction. It's not inconsistent to change the mechanical parameters of an orc encounter - level, defences, hp, to hit and damage numbers, etc - because of the level of the PCs who are facing those orcs.

And the whole suggestion is even more absurd coming from an AD&D player. From the mechanical point of view, there is no difference other than the technical and mathematical between using the attacks-per-round mechanic to reflect relativites of prowess (as AD&D does for fighters vs 0-level men-at-arms and the like) and using the defence-by-level, attack-and-damage-by-level and hp mechanics to reflect the same thing (as 4e does more generally via its minion rules).

Gygax may have seen making an attack as an abstraction over a 1 minute round of feints, parries, and other gambits, but the 4e powers aren't generally written that way. Powers like Piercing Strike aren't described with the same level of abstraction Gygax describes in the 1 minute combat round. They are written as cinematic moves in and of themselves that would amenable to being part of the fiction.

So if you envisage a 4e fighter standing there for 6 seconds doing nothing for 5-and-a-half of them, then moving instantaneously and metronomically on his/her turn, I guess that's your prerogative.

That's not what the art suggests to me. Nor is it what the flavour text suggests to me. The flavour text for Piercing Strike (PHB p 118) is "A needle-sharp point slips past armor and into tender flesh." Mechanically this is expressed as an attack vs Reflex defence rather than AC. There is nothing there that suggests to me that it is inconsistent or incoherent for a mid-paragon rogue to use this particular combat skill to take down an ogre in 6 seconds. Whether such a feat is conceived of as a series of strikes or a single one seems to me a matter for the table.

 

[pemerton]

My argument is that any mechanic that turns the 40 h.p. ogres into 1 h.p. ogres is intentionally not being true to what's established in the fiction, and is thus very flawed.

But it is true to the fiction. The ogre that is tough for mid-heroic PCs is not tough for mid-paragon PCs.

That's it.

I mean, speaking purely about the fiction, what is inconsistent?

as the PCs are a part of an internally-consistent (I hope!) setting, what applies to the PCs must then by extension apply to the rest of the game-world inhabitants; meaning that toggling them up and down is every bit as bad.

This is not a statement about the setting or the gameworld inhabitants. It is a statement about mechanics.

Changing the numbers used to resolve declared actions, and find out what happens in the ficiton, isn't something that happens in the fiction.

Some 5e D&D GMs do not resolve all combats using the 5e combat rules. I know this because I read their posts about it. Some, for instance, simply declare fights over with a bit of narration once it is clear to the table that the PCs have the better of the situation. That is an example of changing the resolution method for that combat. It doesn't mean that the fiction is inconsistent.

The attack-defence-damage-hp system - in 4e, at least - is just a mathematical framework for resolving declared actions. Changing the maths - eg by stepping up defences and stepping down hp; by stepping up attack numbers and stepping down damage; etc - doesn't mean that the fiction is inconsistent.

I'll reiterate: referring only to the fiction, rather than the resolution system, explain what is incoherent about a mid-paragon PC being able to defeat an ogre or a ghoul or whatever in 6 seconds, perhaps with a single blow.

A paragon PC can maybe kill a ghoul in 6 seconds.

Yes. This is determined by making an attack roll.

there are three possible outcomes of any attack roll or sequence:

1. You do no damage at all (typically in D&D this means you miss outright unless some sort of DoaM mechanics are in play)
2. You cause damage to the foe but do not cause enough damage to kill* it
3. You cause enough damage to kill* the foe

* - or defeat, or subdue, or otherwise achieve your desired win condition.

Minion rules disallow #2 as an option

This is all just mechanics. It tells us nothing about the fiction. And it's not as if someone has ordained that you 1, 2 and 3 are mandatory mechanical options for RPGing as such. AD&D, for instance, has many mechanical systems for hurting a creature that do not involve 1, 2 and 3 as options (eg the assassination rules; the rule that magically slept creatures can be killed one per round with no check required; the rule that a paralysed being can be hit automatically for max damage (ie no to hit or damage roll required) at twice the normal attack rate; etc).

Turning from mechanics to fiction: in the fiction, a minion can be hurt but not die. Just like the 1 hp kobold in KotB can be hurt and not die. The minion can be hurt by a paragon level fighter and not die. That would be one possible narration of a missed attack roll. Just as one might narrate a missed attack roll against that 1 hp kobold as scratching but not killing it.

This is why I say that you don't understand 4e combat mechanics. Because you are not able to appreciate the parameters they establish on the fiction, the narration that they do and don't permit, etc.