D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

Given I literally quoted the thing you used as the basis of previous arguments, I don't agree. At all, in fact. So, what was wrong with the New Simulationism definition, that you should reject it now when it is inconvenient to you?

Given that you're cherry picking a single line and then using it as some sort of trump card to validate a personal preference, I don't care.

The text doesn't elevate what you want out of a game over what other people want.

 

[FrogReaver]

Apologies only getting to this now.
I get that, but also in a game which starts using minion ogres they become common place as opposed to ogres you encounter when you're 5th level. i.e. the board states changes as your character progresses in levels and you adapt to the new difficulty.

Anyways, that is my thinking. I'm happy to leave it there.

I can see that. Like we could simulate the world by never changing the pc stats and just changing monster stats when the PCs level. Relativity for d&d!

We could theoretically partially change pc stats and partially change monster stats.

However, minions didn’t just possess different core stats. They also behaved differently for damage on a miss. For whatever reason they became harder to hit than their non minion counterparts, etc. But maybe more importantly the PCs power level compared to non-minion enemies didn’t change at the same rate as against non-minion enemies. We could easily construct encounters to demonstrate this. Say a level 5 vs 6 monster where you start using minion blocks for the level 5 but haven't yet for the level 6.

 

[Enrahim]

Given this is precisely what 4e did, are you asserting 4e is not D&D?

My point was that I fail to see what restrictions you would put on D&D ness in this context that wouldn't clearly specify the level of achievabiliy of mechanical symmetry.

That is either D&D is defined in such a way that mechanical symmetry is impossible, in which the mechanical symmetry part of the trilemma is never achievable without also breaking the first (hence not making it a trillemma), or it is defined so that mechanical symmetry is possible, in wich case you need to argue that all possible mechanically symmetric D&Ds are non-diegetic.

I have not seen you argue for the latter. The existence of a D&D without mechanical symmetry is not really of importance - rather allowing for such mechanical freedoms to make it still considered D&D make the claim that all possible D&D with mechanical symmetry must be non diegetic more exceptional (especially as you with presenting this as a trilemma seem to posit it is possible with a mechanically symmetric diegetic system)

 

[AnotherGuy]

As perceived, sure. But perception isn't what matters here.

Well I attempted to provide a non-gamist representation which is what you had asked for.

In broader terms, a creature's max hit point total is a constant intrinsic to the creature rather than a variable set by external perceptions. This way, the fiction can more easily remain consistent with itself.

I feel the use of the minion concept is to emulate the cinematic experience of the character being so experienced/awesome that they are able to wade through previously considered dangerous monsters with more ease which I find far less problematic to envision than many of the other areas of the game.
I understand that we all have varying levels of fictional acceptance, personally I do not find this a troublesome concept for the game. The minion ogre I'd draw up would still be a threat to the 5th level party.

 

[AnotherGuy]

However, minions didn’t just possess different core stats. They also behaved differently for damage on a miss. For whatever reason they became harder to hit than their non minion counterparts, etc. But maybe more importantly the PCs power level compared to non-minion enemies didn’t change at the same rate as against non-minion enemies. We could easily construct encounters to demonstrate this. Say a level 5 vs 6 monster where you start using minion blocks for the level 5 but haven't yet for the level 6.

The math of 4e is not my preferred method of reflecting the world.

However if I use the minion concept in 5e I would be using things like damage threshold, resistance and # of attacks etc to reflect a minion. I would not be changing the creature's AC, with regards to damage I'd likely use the DMG's mob tactics if there were a lot of them - which is the idea for minions.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My point was that I fail to see what restrictions you would put on D&D ness in this context that wouldn't clearly specify the level of achievabiliy of mechanical symmetry.

That is either D&D is defined in such a way that mechanical symmetry is impossible, in which the mechanical symmetry part of the trilemma is never achievable without also breaking the first (hence not making it a trillemma), or it is defined so that mechanical symmetry is possible, in wich case you need to argue that all possible mechanically symmetric D&Ds are non-diegetic.

I have not seen you argue for the latter. The existence of a D&D without mechanical symmetry is not really of importance - rather allowing for such mechanical freedoms to make it still considered D&D make the claim that all possible D&D with mechanical symmetry must be non diegetic more exceptional (especially as you with presenting this as a trilemma seem to posit it is possible with a mechanically symmetric diegetic system)

It's perfectly achievable if you stop caring about diegesis...which was the whole point. You can invent whatever mechanics are needed as you need them for purely game-balance reasons, and insert them by mechanically-consistent but non-diegetic methods.

And no, I don't think all possible mechanically-symmetric games are non-diegetic. I think all possible 100% perfectly mechanically-symmetric Things That Do What D&D Does are non-diegetic.

Plus? You're building this argument on a flat-out misunderstanding of Lanefan. I've already discussed this with him several times before. I know his position. It is not the milquetoast "everyone uses attack rolls" sort of thing you're thinking.

It literally needs to be only and exclusively what 3e attempted, but thoroughgoing. Everything needs to be 100% symmetrical between players and non-players. Legitimately everything. It might not be directly accessible, e.g., you might need to use magic to transform yourself in order to use a tentacle attack. But genuinely, every mechanic accessible to the players must also be accessible in the exact same form to the NPCs, and vice-versa. No alterations to mechanics which account for the fact that PCs must win fight after fight after fight, while NPCs only fight a single battle...ever, usually, but at the very least, only a single battle per day in essentially all cases.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Hit points are a much bigger part of the rules than minion mechanics, harder to change or ignore.

This is true.
During the early days of 5e / the D&D "Next" phase I had the table experiment with capped HD based on size
(Medium = 6, Large = 10....etc). Resistance and Damage Threshold could also be implemented.

Not sure what you even mean by "magic".

I mean that if i wanted to pick a part the fiction of D&D I have an issue with from a sim/internal consistency perspective, magic would be high on that list. The minion would not even make the top 10.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Given that you're cherry picking a single line and then using it as some sort of trump card to validate a personal preference, I don't care.

The text doesn't elevate what you want out of a game over what other people want.

Then I have nothing further to say to you on this topic, period.

 

[AlViking]

See, but that's the thing. Is that a design goal for simulation? If entities in the game should have a consistent mechanical simulation, doesn't D&D rather fail in that regard? After all, the PC's are not consistent, at all. There is a massive difference between a 1st level character and a 20th level character that is far beyond simply becoming a better swordsperson. And, if we look at other systems where simulation is a goal then we do see that entities in the game do have consistent mechanical representations. After all, a GURPS character does not change very much over the course of its lifetime. A Traveler character doesn't become ten times tougher over the course of its career.

Not only that, but, in most versions of D&D, entities are not consistent. There's no such thing as an "orc" in 3e D&D. Doesn't exist. Every orc is based on an NPC class which means there is no consistent mechanical representation. Thus we get 20th level orc smiths that are more powerful than trolls, despite the fact that an orc is weaker than a troll. None of the humanoids in 3e are consistent because humanoids in 3e are represented by classes which are based on the level system, which is not consistent. My orc smith becomes a better smith by killing goblins? How does that work?

Even in AD&D, there is no real consistency since being a leader of orcs suddenly grants me significantly more HD and HP. Does that mean when an orc leader is killed, another orc suddenly hulks out and gets 4 times tougher?

This idea that D&D has ever had consistency in mechanical representations is not true.

I really hope that if I ever need heart surgery that my doctor has advanced their skill level from someone who knew advanced first aid. D&D is not a reality simulator, it simulates heroic fictional characters. In fiction you do have a vast difference between Conan and the low level soldiers he regularly chops into pieces.

In my own profession I grew significantly from someone who could do basic programs to someone designing and implementing complex software systems with dozens of interfaces.

Scale of growth isn't particularly relevant to simulating that growth happens. I also don't care if an or from 1e is the same as an orc in 5e. Why would that even matter?

You keep trying to "prove" that other people's opinions and preferences are somehow wrong. How about trying to accept that we just have different viewpoints?

 

[AlViking]

You really don’t see how claiming that D&D doesn’t do any one thing good comes across as claiming it’s piss poor?

I would agree that for some people D&D doesn't do some specific things as well for some things. Which I'm fine with. People have different preferences. I don't want all the overhead, detail and results an accurate medieval fighting sim would presumably have. So for me D&D's simplified heroic combat is better because it gives me the experience I want.

Saying it doesn't do well for anything ignores that a game is more than the sum of it's parts.

P.S. I'm not offended by what as said. Just pointing out what I consider a boring, but typical, biased trope