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

[clearstream]

My PC kills fifteen orcs with a fireball, and that's perfectly, morally acceptable.

My PC kills fifteen orc minions with a fireball and that's morally bad?

As @Enrahim draws attention to, aside from minions 4e can be played without slaughtering anyone. Not even with fireballs.

Was this somehow morally repugnant? Somehow giving NPC's 1 HP is morally bad but having 2 HP is fine?

Another difference is that any amount of damage destroys a minion. Their function is to be slaughtered en masse.

 

[SableWyvern]

Another difference is that any amount of damage destroys a minion. Their function is to be slaughtered en masse.

And the function of a fireball is to cause slaughter en masse, burning people to death. In the real world, we've come to generally agree that flame weapons are horrible, and steps have been taken to eliminate their use. You're not doing your position any favours by trying to argue that fireballs aren't all that bad, really.

The minion rules don't sit well with you. That's perfectly fine, it is what it is and you're entitled to feel that way, but you're going to struggle to present this as part of a coherent worldview (rather than a valid but ultimately fairly arbitrary, personal hangup) while simultaneously defending indiscriminate flame weapons.

 

[clearstream]

And the function of a fireball is to cause slaughter en masse, burning people to death. In the real world, we've come to generally agree that flame weapons are horrible, and steps have been taken to eliminate their use. You're not doing your position any favours by trying to argue that fireballs aren't all that bad, really.

The minion rules don't sit well with you. That's perfectly fine, it is what it is and you're entitled to feel that way, but you're going to struggle to present this as part of a coherent worldview (rather than a valid but ultimately fairly arbitrary, personal hangup) while simultaneously defending indiscriminate flame weapons.

It's not arbitrary, but it does follow a different reasoning from that you lay out. On the level of your analysis, one ought to perhaps have the greatest distaste for stinking cloud... but our analyses are not the same.

I find the minions mechanics distasteful because of what it is saying about humanoid minions, not because it is pretending to any specially horrible destruction of them. I'm uncomfortable positioning any humanoids as objects for mass slaughter. That is separate from what I do or do not feel about pretending to inflict horrible ways to die. And in 4e, even fireball isn't mechanically bound to doing that.

Some folk seem to say they see the 4e game mechanics as a sort of undifferentiated blur, or to be accepted all or nothing. Although I agree that the game text overall is significantly important context for the interpretation of the mechanics comprising it, D&D game texts are extensive and diverse enough to that individual mechanics can be differentiated. For instance, the 5e DMG contains some mechanics that fit process simulation, even while the PHB contains many others that do not.

 

[Hussar]

It's not arbitrary, but it does follow a different reasoning from that you lay out. On the level of your analysis, one ought to perhaps have the greatest distaste for stinking cloud... but our analyses are not the same.

I find the minions mechanics distasteful because of what it is saying about humanoid minions, not because it is pretending to any specially horrible destruction of them. I'm uncomfortable positioning certain humanoids as objects for mass slaughter. That is separate from what I do or do not feel about pretending to inflict horrible ways to die. And in 4e, even fireball isn't mechanically bound to doing that.

Some folk seem to say they see the 4e game mechanics as a sort of undifferentiated blur, or to be accepted all or nothing. Although I agree that the game text overall is significantly important context for the interpretation of the mechanics that make it up, D&D game texts are extensive and diverse enough to that individual mechanics can be differentiated. For instance, the 5e DMG contains some mechanics that fit process simulation, even while the PHB contains many others that are not.

That's actually not true. You cannot choose to not kill something with a fireball (or any energy attack). You ALWAYS kill if you reduce anything to zero HP with an energy attack. The minion rules require you to ignore the specific - a PC can always choose to have the attack not kill - in order ot enforce a general rule. There's absolutely no reason that a PC MUST kill a minion when dealing damage.

And, finally, note that roles are COMBAT roles. These are not meant as anything other than combat rules. They are not meant as any sort of commentary on the greater world. That's a connection that you have added. A skirmisher, or an elite, or a lurker isn't some sort of in game world thing. It's purely an abstract term for game mechanics. It's this bizarre insistence on connecting game terminology to in world reality that is causing the problem.

Again, as @SableWyvern says, it's a pretty big stretch and a lot of mental gymnastics to make this connection.

 

[SableWyvern]

It's not arbitrary, but it does follow a different reasoning from that you lay out. On the level of your analysis, one ought to perhaps have the greatest distaste for stinking cloud... but our analyses are not the same.

My analysis is that anyone is welcome to like or dislike any of those mechanics for any reason they want, but they should not suggest that one of them is inherently or objectively more concerning.

Dislike whatever you want for whatever subjective reasons you want, but don't then turn around and try and argue that fireballs are objectively less dislikable.

I, personally, have no particular distaste for any of the three (minions, fireballs or stinking clouds).

Edit to add: The arbitrariness in your position isn't in the internal logic that leads you to conclude that you don't like minions due to real world implications you can see. It's in your decision to disregard as irrelevant a line of reasoning that might suggest fireballs could also be dislikeable, for their own reasons relating to real world implications. You are entitled to that arbitrariness as long as you maintain this is merely a matter of personal preference, but you need to accept it's there. You have asked why you are getting pushback, and it's because you are elevating your chosen method of analysis above others, as if it contains some kind of fundamental truth.

Further edit: Don't feel obliged to reply or continue arguing the point. I don't think there's anything more meaningful for me to say on the topic; if you still disagree, that's your prerogative. If you do voice such disagreement, I'll most likely just let you have the last word (unless you come up with something especially compelling). Peace.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm uncomfortable positioning any humanoids as objects for mass slaughter.

Why, in your opinion, are they objects for mass slaughter?

 

[clearstream]

Why, in your opinion, are they objects for mass slaughter?

Read the game text. The designers explain that the mechanic is so characters can feel confident and powerful carving through them like butter, and they are destroyed by any amount of damage.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Read the game text. The designers explain that the mechanic is so characters can feel confident and powerful carving through them like butter, and they are destroyed by any amount of damage.

Why, in your opinion, was this seen as a good design (by the designers)?

 

[clearstream]

My analysis is that anyone is welcome to like or dislike any of those mechanics for any reason they want, but they should not suggest that one of them is inherently or objectively more concerning.

Got it. So I was not saying objectively more concerning, I was saying not arbitrarily concerning.

Dislike whatever you want for whatever subjective reasons you want, but don't then turn around and try and argue that fireballs are objectively less dislikable.

I don't think they are objectively less dislikeable, only that they are not dislikeable on precisely the same grounds. This idea that game mechanics aren't differentiable baffles me.

Edit to add: The arbitrariness in your position isn't in the internal logic that leads you to conclude that you don't like minions due to real world implications you can see. It's in your decision to disregard as irrelevant a line of reasoning that might suggest fireballs could also be dislikeable, for their own reasons relating to real world implications. You are entitled to that arbitrariness as long as you maintain this is merely a matter of personal preference, but you need to accept it's there. You have asked why you are getting pushback, and it's because you are elevating your chosen method of analysis above others, as if it contains some kind of fundamental truth.

It's irrelevant to my motives. I'm not elevating my analysis, I am differentiating it.

Further edit: Don't feel obliged to reply or continue arguing the point. I don't think there's anything more meaningful for me to say on the topic; if you still disagree, that's your prerogative. If you do voice such disagreement, I'll most likely just let you have the last word (unless you come up with something especially compelling). Peace.

Too late! Though in truth I am responding here more for the benefit of others, as it seems to me we're at a point of reasonable appreciation of one another's differences in motives and choices. Reciprocally, if you would like to write some closing thoughts I will leave it at that (unless they're wildly provocative )

 

[clearstream]

Why, in your opinion, was this seen as a good design (by the designers)?

Read the game text. They explain their goals.