The Difference Between Realism vs. Believability

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm not sure. I don't think so. Everyone has been very articulate about the larger perspective, but when Mallus claimed that the minion rules are believable, I decided to jump on one specific example where they aren't:

Ok! on the specific instance of miss on an area effect. They are affected in the same way as any other creature in the area of effect that did not die.
Remember from my prespective hit points != physical wounds.
Hit points are plot protection, when you run out then you get wounded and/or die.

 

[NoWayJose]

Ok! on the specific instance of miss on an area effect. They are affected in the same way as any other creature in the area of effect that did not die.
Remember from my prespective hit points != physical wounds.
Hit points are plot protection, when you run out then you get wounded and/or die.

That still doesn't make sense in the context of that example. Minions don't have "plot protection" against a simple dagger. But when ANY area spell causes half damage ALL the minions suddenly have the equivalent of 'plot protection'. You can also read the original post and read all the comments on that page as most of the commentors on that page have understood the implausible situation it represents.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That still doesn't make sense in the context of that example. Minions don't have "plot protection" against a simple dagger. But when ANY area spell causes half damage ALL the minions suddenly have the equivalent of 'plot protection'. You can also read the original post and read all the comments on that page as most of the commentors on that page have understood the implausible situation it represents.

I think that what bugs you (and most of the people on the comments to that post) is the one hit point.
If the rule was minions do not have hit points but only die on a hit would that make more sense?

 

[NoWayJose]

I think that what bugs you (and most of the people on the comments to that post) is the one hit point.
If the rule was minions do not have hit points but only die on a hit would that make more sense?

The one hit point does not bug me per se. Are you going to answer the question or what? I am leech-like about this.

 

[DragonLancer]

Perhaps to look at that example is that injuries have been caused or one guard in that "minion" has gone down, but not enough damage was caused in that round to affect the overall strength of the horde.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The one hit point does not bug me per se. Are you going to answer the question or what? I am leech-like about this.

I thought I had answered it, in 3 separate posts. I do not have a problem with the scenario as presented. I have given my reasons why. Obviously you and others have a problem with this scenario. So what? nothing I say is going to convince you to believe otherwise and obviously you don't get my prespective on it. That is ok also, 'cause if you did it would not bother you.

So! do you play 4e? Do you use minions? Do you kill them on a miss area effect that does damage?

I could of course be missing your point completely but if not then I do not believe any more discussion between us is going to get us anywhere.

 

[NoWayJose]

Perhaps to look at that example is that injuries have been caused or one guard in that "minion" has gone down, but not enough damage was caused in that round to affect the overall strength of the horde.

Man, I feel like I'm trying to pull out a tooth. It is clear as day to me that the above makes no sense. The horde isn't a liquidy swarm monster that is greater than the sum of its parts. Each minion is a discrete unit and must be treated as such. Each minion has NO karma and can die from a simple knife wound or punch to the head, but an area spell causing damage in the double digits, so utterly destructive that it OBLITERATES THE LEADER even at half damage, somehow leaves the minions completely unscathed. That massive conflageration, which utterly destroys the leader and lieutenant and other beasts, leaves the hapless unfortunate decrepit minions miraculously alive for no apparent reason. Meanwhile, another minion on the other side of the chamber, who was lucky enough to be outside the reach of the spell, is killed when a hero farts on him.

For the record, I would never defend the plausibility of 3E mechanics that clearly make no sense. I would just admit: I admit it's not believable and/or I don't care. But I wouldn't BS that it was believable when it clearly isn't.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Man, I feel like I'm trying to pull out a tooth. It is clear as day to me that the above makes no sense. The horde isn't a liquidy swarm monster that is greater than the sum of its parts. Each minion is a discrete unit and must be treated as such. Each minion has NO karma and can die from a simple knife wound or punch to the head, but an area spell causing damage in the double digits, so utterly destructive that it OBLITERATES THE LEADER even at half damage, somehow leaves the minions completely unscathed. That massive conflageration, which utterly destroys the leader and lieutenant and other beasts, leaves the hapless unfortunate decrepit minions miraculously alive for no apparent reason. Meanwhile, another minion on the other side of the chamber, who was lucky enough to be outside the reach of the spell, is killed when a hero farts on him.

For the record, I would never defend the plausibility of 3E mechanics that clearly make no sense. I would just admit: I admit it's not believable and/or I don't care. But I wouldn't BS that it was believable when it clearly isn't.

So your calling me a liar now, that I am taking a position that I do not believe for the purpose of being obtuse.
Well I am not, it does not bother me. Hit points are not real in game things, so damage to hit points is not a real in game thing. It is a useful construct to allow me and other to play the damn game.
I do not believe we have anything more to discuss.

 

[NoWayJose]

So your calling me a liar now, that I am taking a position that I do not believe for the purpose of being obtuse.
Well I am not, it does not bother me. Hit points are not real in game things, so damage to hit points is not a real in game thing. It is a useful construct to allow me and other to play the damn game.

I'm not calling you a liar. I believe you that it doesn't bother you.

If a battle was as simple as "roll 2 dice, higher roll wins" then that would be boring and flavorless, but it is so abstract as to imply nothing, leaving the player to decide what happened in-game, and I'd have nothing to quarrel with you about.

But, in this case, the mechanics are specific enough to imply a certain in-game reality. And that in-game reality is implausible. To ignore that implication is anyone's right, but the implication is definitely there.

Over on the 4E Essentials Knight thread, Mike Mearls goes to considerable length to reconciliate a Knight class power with the in-game/fluff explanation:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/284695-essential-knight-8.html#post5256688

Really, though, the mechanic is meant to capture the flavor of an alert, experienced warrior. While the rogue inspects a locked door and the wizard tries to translate the runes scribed above it, the fighter keeps his eyes open for trouble, his sword at hand, shifting his feet to stay ready to move. An experienced warrior would look at the three and immediately note that the fighter is a highly trained combatant.

Even outside of combat, you can see it playing out like this. A thief creeps up behind the fighter standing at the bar. As he slides up to the fighter to pick his pocket, the fighter whirls around, grabs the thief by the hand, and slams him into the bar. It's almost a Conan-style thing, the really skilled, warrior driven by training that has transformed into instinct.

But how can it be that Mike Mearls is defining one 4E mechanic as an in-game reality, and the 1 hp minion mechanic defines an in-game reality of enemies with no karma, and yet the minion miss-no-damage mechanic is a meaningless construct? Isn't this a little too convenient? And one person insists that 4E game rules are separate from believability. Another person accusing the other side of being obsessive-compulsive nerds. Sounds like trying to have cake and eating it too.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm not calling you a liar. I believe you that it doesn't bother you.

OK, I'll accept that 'cause I was beginning to wonder.

If a battle was as simple as "roll 2 dice, higher roll wins" then that would be boring and flavorless, but it is so abstract as to imply nothing, leaving the player to decide what happened in-game, and I'd have nothing to quarrel with you about.

Fair enough

But, in this case, the mechanics are specific enough to imply a certain in-game reality. And that in-game reality is implausible. To ignore that implication is anyone's right, but the implication is definitely there.

I do not demand rigour - If I am correct you are viewing hit points and game mechanics with a simulationist bias and if so I do understand what you are getting at because I once did the same.
However, if you demand rigour from the simulation then all sorts of corner cases arise that cause difficulty like the 1 hit point minion surviving a miss effect that causes more than one hit point of damage. The high level fighter falling off the cliff and walking away. The very concept that a housecat can kill a grown adult in the prime of their life and health.

If you want the miss effect to take out minions then fair enough.
To be honest I find the very idea of anyone in a room surviing a fireball to be somewhat implausible but its a D&D genre convention and I'll go along with it.

Over on the 4E Essentials Knight thread, Mike Mearls goes to considerable length to reconciliate a Knight class power with the in-game/fluff explanation:
But how can it be that Mike Mearls is defining one 4E mechanic as an in-game reality, and the 1 hp minion mechanic defines an in-game reality of enemies with no karma, and yet the minion miss-no-damage mechanic is a meaningless construct? Isn't this a little too convenient? And one person insists that 4E game rules are separate from believability.

While I accept that there is a correspondence between mechanics and in game narrative I do not accept that the relationship is constant.

Let me give you an example. Wild Bill Hickok, Hickok was shot and killed instantly in Deadwood and in that fight Wild Bill was a minion in the other fights he was not. As regard to the explosion, the way I see the narrative there is no fundamental difference between a minion in game compared to any other creature. The minion status only matters if a PC actually hits them.
I would be perfectly happy if they had no listed hit points. Hit points are a convience for the use of the players and the DM to track who is winning and who is loosing.
Any system is going to have corner cases but it is only a problem of consistency if you insist that the rules somehow model the world.
If the two of us where somehow transported to downtown Waterdeep tomorrow morning as our player characters I would consider it very dangerous to rely too strongly on our knowledge of the game mechanics as a guide to how 4e Forgotten Realms actually works.

Another person accusing the other side of being obsessive-compulsive nerds.

We are obsessive compulsive nerds We have been at this like a dog with a bone.

I do not by the way say that the rules are separate from believability but that they are not a simulation of the in game reality. They are levers to allow the player and DM to manipulate the ingame narrative and resolve conflicts that arise in game. And you are making me thing to hard about fantasy and sober to boot.