Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9181017" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Why not use two methods? We can use whatever tools are available to get the results we'd like. Powerful heroes are one thing, faceless hordes to be killed are another.And this is not any more at GM whim than anything else. When minion rules existed, they were a part of the encounter creation system, which included other creatures and challenge rating and XP and all kinds of other rules. Only if you make it more convoluted. No one claimed that minion status is part of the setting. That's silly. The mechanics represent what we want in the setting. What we want, and what minion rules help depict, are faceless hordes that are dangerous, but dispatched when struck. There are so many things that don't "exist in the setting" as you describe here. Hit points and to hit bonuses and all other kinds of mechanics. They're representative. Same as minion rules. I don't think that's the purpose of stats. Because until there is interaction with another game element, the stats don't matter. We only need stats when the PCs arrive and interact with something. What you're describing above is a choice. You prefer for the representation to remain persistent and as objective as possible. That's a fine choice. The reasons you have are understandable... but they are yours, not absolute truths. For many, there is no reason that anything "must" remain objective. I'd think simulationism would only come into it if we were concerned with the model representing the real world in some way. I don't see how the standard hit point system can be said to be any more simulationist than minion rules.</blockquote>

Verification