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

[Enrahim]

RE: Minions

D&D stat blocks and combat mechanics provide a probabilistic model of combat. Like every model, there are strengths and weaknesses. And like almost every model it only extends so far. Even Newtonian physics breaks down at cases where you close in on relativistic and quantum settings. In terms of tests about reading ability, a method called vertical scaling allows reading tests at adjacent grade levels to be very comparable -- but what constitutes reading ability changes a lot if one wants to look at all of 1st through 12th grade and having 1st and 12th graders take the same test would be silly. Two dimensional maps work great for small patches of the eartj, but have obvious problems when one wants the entire surface of the planet in one go. Is there any reason a sports rating system that works very well predicting expected point spreads and standard errors for top division teams should still work if you start mixing in teams several divisions down, say from pros to JV high school teams, and then see how they work when they play each other?

I'm not sure why D&D should be different. Even if low CR monsters and the rules work well for combat with players levels 1-5, another batch of CR monsters are great for 6-10, still higher CR work great for 11-15, and the highest are great for levels 16-20, is there any reason one stat block and set of rules should accurately model it when things at the two extremes are being compared? It strikes me as entirely reasonable that when the extremes are reached that a single model should break down.

Is having separate minion and standard not-minion stat blocks for the same monster just another way of modeling creatures - the minion one good at capturing what's happening when the player level is much much above the standard CR for the monster? And should mixing vastly different power levels in combat cause strange things?

Random notes I didn't fit in:

• Swarms?
• Is the difficulty in modeling vast differences in power levels and getting them to play nicely a much bigger thing in some super hero games?
• Is the problem viewed differently by folks who cut their teeth on D&D a long time ago when parties might have characters of vastly different levels (oops, dead, make a new level-one) vs. one where the replacement characters drop in at the same level they left?
• Is the need for rules that work differently in different situations obvious in cases like falling damage rules that don't have a maximum height for damage or don't account for cases where the person is dropped from orbit onto a stony plateau?

As mentioned a bit upthread: The idea of contextual representation is interesting, but is an extreme design challenge due to the transition. That is both representations should feel similar enough that if you are at the point where you would switch from one to the other, there are no jarring changes in "the thing" represented (like it suddenly becoming much more or much less of a threat).

I am not aware of any big scale game trying to tackle that challenge. 4ed certainly didn't.

 

[AlViking]

People don't like changes because:

(1) they're new, and new is scary
(2) because change implies that the way you've been playing is old-fashioned or out-of-date or even just plain wrong and how dare you say that
(3) because many changes are designed to make things simpler, which makes some people unhappy because they had to walk uphill both ways with no shoes in order to kill orcs, and if it was good enough for them it should be good enough for you.
(4) they got used to the old ways and don't want to learn new things.

I've found it fairly uncommon that people have other reasons than those.

This comes off as really insulting "If you don't like something new, it's your fault ". I have no issues with change but see no value in change for the sake of change.

Why can't we just accept that some people have different preferences? Because saying "Change is scary!" makes it sound like you're talking to a toddler.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Not in jest, but with an intent that is not one-dimensional either. Stepping back from the particulars of my argument, for the minions mechanic the designers state their aims, many seem to accept that those aims were to some extent achieved. Analysis can thus turn toward Goethe's third question: was it worth doing? There are many answers to that: I've outlined one that I find interesting.

I wouldn't say that 4e would be a lesser design just because the minions mechanics were cut from the text. Would you? If so, why? What makes them worth keeping?

I'm struggling to accept this as a credible argument and your initial post down this line.

Lets cut dragonborn (I'm not personally a fan) from 5e, does that make 5e a lesser design? I do not think so, probably makes it better in my eyes.
Lets cut monks (I'm not personally a fan) from 5e, does that make 5e a lesser design? I do not think so, probably makes it better in my eyes.
Lets cut Expertise(2014) (I'm not personally a fan of the double proficiency) from 5e, does that make 5e a lesser design? I do not think so, probably makes it better in my eyes.
...can you see where I'm going with this?
Is this really the argument you wish me to believe you're making?

As for what makes the minion concept worth keeping (for me) - I kinda answered that upthread to @Lanefan. I feel it is a great tool. You do not have to use the concept, kinda like 5e's plot points, dragonborn, monks, expertise, hero points, 24 hour full recovery rests....

I really cannot take this argument seriously because it is absurd.

 

[Aldarc]

Well I'm sorry my misuse of your favored jargon offended you. I have noticed minion mechanics are often appreciated (or at least better tolerated) by those who also tend to favor Narrativist-leaning games. Coincidence?

You do understand that Gamism exists in GNS, right? You do understand that anything that isn’t Simulationism isn’t Narrativism by default? Even then @Hriston pointed out that what you thought was “Narrativist” about 4e mechanics was better identified as High Concept Simulationism.

Also what Narrativist games do you have in mind? You misidentified minion rules in 4e as being Narrativist and now you think anyone trusts you to think that you have any idea what a Narrativist game is other than games you dislike? You have poisoned your own well. “Narrativism” seems to equate to “anything Micah Sweet doesn’t like.” Any mechanics you hate you label as “Narrativist” regardless of whether it is or not. Coincidence?

I have repeatedly tried in good grace to give you an out by telling you that you don’t need to misuse GNS to dislike minion mechanics. My brother in Christ, I am begging you to take it without doubling-down on the error. Take the L and move on.

 

[clearstream]

As for what makes them worth keeping (for me) - I kinda answered that upthread to @Lanefan. They are a great tool.

A great tool for what? Is that the designer aims described in the DMG?

 

[AnotherGuy]

A great tool for what?

For combat - minions are traditionally used in combat.

Minions can stream-line high level combat, I'm not needing to track 30+ minions worth of hit points anymore.
In the Storm Kings Thunder AP, the last chapter literally has the party face 30 gargoyles in the Amphitheatre, which dragon's lair resides underneath.
I do not have to track their hit points anymore, I can load them up with 1 hp and place a Damage Threshold. (DMG 247). Simple, makes my life easier and helps the pace for a high level encounter.

But wait there is an alternative
You do not like 1 hp, change it to x number of successful attacks before the minion drops.

It is a tool and as you know 5e is all about tool proficiency.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

As mentioned a bit upthread: The idea of contextual representation is interesting, but is an extreme design challenge due to the transition. That is both representations should feel similar enough that if you are at the point where you would switch from one to the other, there are no jarring changes in "the thing" represented (like it suddenly becoming much more or much less of a threat).

I am not aware of any big scale game trying to tackle that challenge. 4ed certainly didn't.

Aren’t both daggerbeart and the cosimere (so) rpg tackle those?

 

[clearstream]

For combat - minions are traditionally used in combat.

Minions can stream-line high level combat, I'm not needing to track 30+ minions worth of hit points anymore.
In the Storm Kings Thunder AP, the last chapter literally has the party face 30 gargoyles in the Amphitheatre, which dragon's lair resides underneath.
I do not have to track their hit points anymore, I can load them up with 1 hp and place a Damage Threshold. (DMG 247). Simple, makes my life easier and helps the pace for a high level encounter.

But wait there is an alternative
You do not like 1 hp, change it to x number of successful attacks before the minion drops.

It is a tool and as you know 5e is all about tool proficiency.

That sounds like what the designers described they were trying to do in the 4e DMG. Is that accurate?

 

[Lanefan]

Well. It's nice to finally see folks call that out...twelve years late. I must beg your forgiveness for finding that a cold comfort at this point.

I've been on about their surveying since 1999.

Because if that's the case, literally every claim every person has ever made about 5e being somehow correctly designed for the current market evaporates instantly--one cannot base any claims on sales, demographics, or anything else, because all of that is, by WotC's own admission, based on their survey data.

If the survey data is bad, everything that comes from it is bad. Fruit of a poisoned tree. That's substantially more useful to me than it is to anyone else.

And as their surveying has been crap since 1999 it's not just a problem for 5e; 3e and 4e were similarly affected.

Why make that exception? Money doesn't indicate good design either.

Perhaps, but it does indicate success enough to be able to keep doing it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

That sounds like what the designers described they were trying to do in the 4e DMG. Is that accurate?

To be honest I do not know, but I would guess that would be the major reason.

EDIT: In a way it can also function as 4e's version of Bounded Accuracy (monster's remain viable for longer).

But there are so many other ways to do this - you could use 3.x's Hardness and Damage Reduction rules particularly with monsters like gargoyles.
The design space is wide open.

Swarms, Mobs, Minions, Mooks, Oozes becoming lesser Oozes, Monsters as Environment etc - it is all fun IMO.