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

[Lanefan]

Re minions: I get that minon's don't work for everyone, that is fine. But what is this obsession with Ogres being this one mono-Ogre, all Ogres are exactly the same. If we can accept that humans can range from 5hp to 200 hp, dragons can exist at different age levels with different HP and abilities, why do Ogres all of a sudden have to all be identical to each other?

They don't. If you're rolling their hit points at d8 per hit die a 5 HD adult* Ogre can have 5-40 h.p. + 5 x its Con bonus, which itself can vary but would (the way the WotC editions do bonuses) never be less than +1 and would more often be more like +3 or +4, sometimes more. Thus, the spindliest (and unluckiest!) of Ogres might have 10 h.p. while the very toughest might have more like 65 or even 70. That's still quite a range.

Also, some Ogres are bright enough (barely) to have picked up a few levels of Fighter along the way, which while not making any real difference to their hit points can make a difference to what else they can do.

* - Ogres leave the one hit point mark behind when they're about two days old, and I'm assuming we're not fighting their very young kids here.

 

[Lanefan]

WOTC made minions because they thought tracking the HP of twenty plus creatures was too much of a pain.

It's passing rare that the PCs run into 20 creatures at once that aren't one-hit wonders even with their full hit points. Last session the party did meet about 30 Duergar all at once, about 1/3 of them were guard types (though out of their armour at the time) and 2/3 were common miners. The party's heavy fighter could insta-kill a miner on anything but minimum damage, but it usually took the rest of the PCs a couple of hits to put down a miner (see below) and three or more hits to take out a guard.

They got to pile the bodies high in that one; though, as most of the PCs have AC values that the Duergar could barely touch. The only real threat was that someone might get swarmed under, but no such luck.

Does anyone here want to share tips for managing a fight with thirty of so giants??

For a battle with 30 Giants to not be a TPK before it began, the PCs' levels would have to be wa-a-ay higher than anything I've ever DMed.

That said, I've run numerous combats with 15+ significant foes; and in one or two of those battles all the foes had levels, classes etc. just like the PCs. And sure, tracking those was a fair bit of work; though the bigger headache for me isn't tracking their hit points etc. but keeping track of which token on the board goes with which hit-point number* on my sheet.

* - and intiative die; yes they all get separate initiatives, rerolled each round.

=======

The above story from last session points out another problem with minions: they're one-hit wonders for everyone in the party where normally there's only one or two PCs that could one-shot them at their normal full h.p. while the rest of the PCs would need two or more hits to kill one.

For example: you're a high-level party fighting a pile of Orcs, each of which has 15 h.p.

Your party Fighter gives out 25 per hit on average. Unless she rolls really badly on the damage dice, those Orcs are one-hitters for her.

Your party Cleric, on the other hand, only gives out 10 per hit on average. Those Orcs are not one-hitters for him except if-when he crits. And yet, minionizing the Orcs makes them one-hitters for him too. @AnotherGuy 's idea of a damage threshold might help, but if set too high now half the party can't touch the minions, which probably isn't the desired result.

 

[AnotherGuy]

For a battle with 30 Giants to not be a TPK before it began, the PCs' levels would have to be wa-a-ay higher than anything I've ever DMed.

I have to wonder how that scenario would play out in 5e using the rules (no homebrew either on the side of the PCs or the monsters).

 

[clearstream]

Then this part of our conversation is over - but do remember you responded to me. I have been pretty transparent in this thread in how I would mechanically handle minions in 5e.

That's inaccurate. Our conversation about minions was initiated by your post @ing me and characterising mine which was about the mechanic in 4e.

So, the game continuously designing items, classes and spells that do mass annihilation on all life, not just humanoids, doesn't affect you only when the mechanics behind fictional humanoids make them ripe for slaughter does it raise the ethical concern.

That is or borders on whataboutism. My ethical concern appertained to colonialism and its supporting tropes. One of the more egregious has been the depersonalization and mass slaughter of peoples. The principle purpose of the 4e minions mechanic in the designers' own words is that "The players get to enjoy carving through the mob like a knife through butter, feeling confident and powerful."

I accept your contention that D&D overwhelmingly focuses on warfare and I have in mind the sorts of warfare that players are encouraged to pretend that they are enacting. Perhaps AoEs are morally problematic as you indicated upthread, but that would serve only to reinforce that the 4e minions mechanics are problematic. I could be accused of hypocrisy on such grounds, but not inaccuracy.

Do keep in mind a lot of us have played games (Arcade/PC) where 1-shot kills are the norm.

This is a good point, and surfaced an irony in your notion of using DR in 5e. In 5e 2014 DR is used for objects, and in videogames of course foes are literally objects rather than individuals. One can successfully play an arcade game without ever pretending the targets are peoples. I suspect that is true to a far lesser extent of TTRPG, because the medium is imagination and pretence. I wondered if your players had ever felt empathy for one of your pretended NPCs?

I'd argue it is the context around those worries grounded in morality which makes them absurd.

So far you've characterised it as absurd, but you've presented no argument supporting that beyond the whataboutism one I address above which doesn't in itself demonstrate any absurdity. Do you have in mind some as yet unexpressed arguments for how the context around those worries makes them absurd?

And yet are allowed to roleplay less than honourable/good characters...

Yes, that relates to what I wrote about compunction needing to take into account that play is separated from the real. We can roleplay characters that act in ways we would never act. I presented it as a possible argument for dismissing the moral worries with minions mechanics.

Apologies I do not share that sentiment as I find your viewpoint illogical..

Logic doesn't neatly apply to questions of morality, but can you point out the specific logical missteps you think I am making?

Some of us just play D&D.

Absolutely, but that doesn't have anything to do with moral worries in connection with different game mechanics. It could surface a pragmatic concern: as the 4e designers write "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... On top of that, keeping track of the actions of so many monsters is a headache." The 5e designers do not seem to have shared that worry, as they didn't include a minions mechanic in core.

 

[AnotherGuy]

That's inaccurate. Our conversation about minions was initiated by your post @ing me and characterising mine which was about the mechanic in 4e.

Fair enough.
For me, an ogre is an ogre is an ogre - some have skill sets that are different and they have been labelled differently for identification reasons as they have different purposes within the game.
Same way in RL we have a plumber, a hair stylist and a librarian - these are the same creatures, with different stats and different purposes.

That is or borders on whataboutism.
My ethical concern appertained to colonialism and its supporting tropes. One of the more egregious has been the depersonalization and mass slaughter of peoples. The principle purpose of the 4e minions mechanic in the designers' own words is that "The players get to enjoy carving through the mob like a knife through butter, feeling confident and powerful."

I would say it is whataboutism because it is like you say further where you recognise the hypocrisy of the argument for a game whose focus is violence and in the majority of the case such violence is the act of slaughtering.

Bold emphasis mine - refer below.

This is a good point, and surfaced an irony in your notion of using DR in 5e. In 5e 2014 DR is used for objects, and in videogames of course foes are literally objects rather than individuals. One can successfully play an arcade game without ever pretending the targets are peoples. I suspect that is true to a far lesser extent of TTRPG, because the medium is imagination and pretence.

The irony wasn't intended but my idea for use of the Damage Threshold is both for gamist & funnily enough simulation purposes.

I wondered if your players had ever felt empathy for one of your pretended NPCs?

So, this is really the crux of your argument which also relates to my bold emphasis of your comment above.
The 30+ gargoyles which protect the dragon's lair have been created by the dragon herself, she is known as the Dragon of Statues. How much empathy do you think my players should have for them?

Let us take it to @Umbran's example of having ogre guard minions - same question how much empathy should the players have?

I think what happens is some people want to humanise the entire play experience and miss the forest for the trees.

I could give you examples of when my players showed empathy and I can give you examples of when they did not. I do not think that will satisfy you though.

So far you've characterised it as absurd, but you've presented no argument supporting that beyond the whataboutism one I address above which doesn't in itself demonstrate any absurdity. Do you have in mind some as yet unexpressed arguments for how the context around those worries makes them absurd?

I do not believe the worry is real. You have yet to prove to me how this is a real concern.
You can make fancy theoretically arguments about the morality of D&D and the minion mechanic you believe aggravates a morality issue but in no way can you prove this is an actual concern in RL. Hence I find it absurd.

Logic doesn't neatly apply to questions of morality, but can you point out the specific logical missteps you think I am making?

Game predominantly focused in violence provides mechanics to ease overhead in combat and to elevate fun.
Somehow this mechanic is believed to encourage / influence depersonalisation of people in RL.
How has this translation from fiction to RL been made?

Absolutely, but that doesn't have anything to do with moral worries in connection with different game mechanics.
It could surface a pragmatic concern: as the 4e designers write "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... On top of that, keeping track of the actions of so many monsters is a headache." The 5e designers do not seem to have shared that worry, as they didn't include a minions mechanic in core.

No but they do discuss Hack and Slash style of play where I as GM am not expected to witness adventurers anguishing over what to do with prisoners, or debate whether it is right or wrong to invade and wipe out a bugbear's lair (sounds awfully colonialist ).

If you are really concerned about doing a cleanse, maybe we should start by not calling them monsters, right?
I've heard of the People's Elbow, but I'm skeptical of the enthusiasm one could garner from the Peoples Manual.

 

[Umbran]

Let us take it to @Umbran's example of having ogre guard minions - same question how much empathy should the players have?

In my example, I presented minions as specific individuals, working for an individual at an implied governmental bureaucracy.

You gotta stretch like Reed Richards to position my example to be colonialist. It is perhaps slightly comically anti-government.

Moral implications cannot be assessed on the level of mechanics - they can only be seen on the level of the narrative. What is being represented by the mechanic is key.

I do not believe the worry is real.

The question of whether games have influence on real-world moral actions is one long debated, and we are unlikely to resolve it here.

 

[AnotherGuy]

In my example, I presented minions as specific individuals, working for an individual at an implied governmental bureaucracy.

Ah I missed that, I was referring to your example with Cronut the Barbarian (posts #22009 and #22010)

 

[Maxperson]

I'm of the opinion minions can be used for both.

In @Umbran's example they serve primarily if not solely as narrative set pieces. In my next session's battle they'll be part of a mass combat encounter, and identified as minions, with less focus on their narrative role, but rather serve as tactical obstacles.

I agree. The minion is a narrative tool according to what 4e wrote about its use. Like any tool, though, you can also use it for other things, even if it wasn't made for that purpose.

 

[Umbran]

Ah I missed that, I was referring to your example with Cronut the Barbarian (posts #22009 and #22010)

Yes.
The minions were working for Gastlagast the Devil-Giant, who resides at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

I am not, in this, representing a culture of people being overrun by colonizers.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yes.
The minions were working for Gastlagast the Devil-Giant, who resides at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

I am not, in this, representing a culture of people being overrun by colonizers.

Oh I was not implying anything of the sort. My comment was merely to engage how much empathy does @clearstream expect players to have for 2 door wardens who are there to fulfil a cinematic moment - whether they had 1 hit point or 50 hit points, the empathy should not be dependent on the number of hit points if one is arguing for morality.