Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Ourph]

Thinking of them as '1hp monsters' is not accurate. They really are a mid-combat skill challenge. The mechanics are identical. The cognitive dissonance, as I see it, is in finding some rationalization as to why they are monsters. They aren't monsters, they are flat cubes, they are missing a dimension that defines every other opponent; namely, hit points.

This really doesn't have anything to do with the issue I'm discussing with Joe. It's an interesting point, but doesn't really have any bearing on the simulationist world-building aspects of minions.

 

[Barastrondo]

If you enjoy the minion rules, use them and happy gaming. We found them amusing at first but have become annoyed with them. While the minions permit scenes from fiction to occur within the game, just remember that the characters in the fiction were not being played by real people who get to see the underlying mechanics supporting thier acts of heroism.

It's easy enough to remember. Those real people are at my table every week, bringing food and drink. They all see the underlying mechanics, but we view them as an enabler rather than a millstone. If they bug your group, absolutely the best rule is to drop them, but I can assure you I'm not inflicting them on unhappy players.

What if Aragorn got to the bottom of the hill at Amon Hen, looked back at all the carnage he had created and saw only cardboard cutouts lying on the ground? Would he feel that his accomplishment was worth anything?

I'm not sure how that line of argument applies. Aragorn's player and Aragorn are not the same thing. The tendency to view the world through the filter of game mechanics isn't a common one at our table; for us, Aragorn sees orcs, even though Viggo knows they were extras. We don't have trouble with the two images blending in our heads.

When anything and everything morphs depending on context you get a world without substance.

I disagree. It is without the particular substance of a ruleset that encourages absolutes regardless of context, but that's just one breed of substance. I haven't seen many absolutes that are worthy of preservation regardless of context — at least as far as game mechanics go. "Treat your players like decent human beings" is the kind of absolute I tend to get behind.

Assuming that all ogres are now minions, this would be accurate.

Most probably would be within the context of that campaign, because it's the ideal way to model them. But campaigns and campaign worlds are different things. Just because rank-and-file ogres wind up being minions when one campaign gets up to about 15th level or so doesn't mean that another 3rd-level campaign in the same world is suddenly going to find that most ogres they run into are minions.

To us, the in-character perspective takes precedence over the mechanical consistency. It would make less sense to treat a 3rd-level encounter with ogres the same way as the 15th-level one. I realize this is the core point of contention, and that wouldn't work at all for many folks in this thread; I just point out what works for us, and I defend it as something that works great for us.

If you are saying that the DM can and should use common sense to adjudicate rules in order to reinforce the contextual meaning of the game milieu, we are on the same page. Now, if you could please say as much in this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ealing-dm-who-takes-things-too-literally.html) I would appreciate it.

I don't think the thread in question quite applies. I have the feeling that trying to argue for common-sense calls as a whole would give the mistaken impression that I felt the thread-starter in general was a common-sense call, and I honestly don't. I come down on the side of it being literal beyond the point of common sense, so I can't in good conscience defend it with these terms. Apologies!

Canada. But I think your 1 hp minimum is a house rule. Or can you tell me where to find it in the RAW?

I'm sorry, what "1 hp minimum"? I was just commenting on the wonder of butterflies that could do 1 hp of damage and be considered "feeble." They weren't my creation, to be sure!

This is, I think, the crux of the problem. The player has to know how the character perceives the threat. But the basis for player knowledge is shifted. Captain Kirk's player may have the good Captain go "OMG! Horta!", but unless the same player also views the horta as a threat to CK, a great deal of the visceral thrill is gone. IMHO, at least.

I guess it depends on how much the player took into account his mechanical knowledge as a player in the first place. One of the reasons that I like 4e so much is that with quick and easy build-your-own monster rules, role-based mechanics, and the ease of reskinning, you can have a lot of diversity between monsters. It's really hard to second-guess what a monster's mechanics are, so you rely more on in-character observation.

(Example: the necrosis-spitting mutant "bull rat" that we went up against in my brother's last game? Ankheg stat block. Which is to say, L3 elite brute with a spit attack and a grab attack. No way I could have predicted that stat block, so I had to react to what my character saw.)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time. Will anyone bother to make "Retro Clones" of 4e 25 years from now?

Too many factors to consider. The odds are certainly lower, since there are been so many different RPGs out there to cater to every potential taste in 2008, and there weren't nearly as many 25 (35?) years ago. To say nothing of the "first to market" factor — a first contact is certainly a hell of a mindshare advantage.

 

[jgbrowning]

I'll believe what you tell me, if you answer the question.

If you believed what I've told you, you would not have asked the question because the answer to your question's already been said.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

@ joe b.: Thank you so much for sharing your perceptions on 4E design. It has helped me tremendously clarify from a design point of view *why* 4E was bothering me so much.

Glad to see something I said helped with some design conceptualizations.

To me, minions are problematical for my play style preferences since the desired narrative intent of minions to make the players feel powerful is in opposition to how I like to play D&D, and how I have played for years.

To use the most recent analogy, minions are a mechanic useful when going for a Batman feel, but I don't want a Batman feel when I play D&D. To me, a D&D character isn't the same kind of character I'd expect to play in Feng Shui so minions are out of place.

joe b.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Did you ever fight low level monsters in 3E? They are just paper. Nothing Tiger to it. Most of the time, they won't even be able to touch you.

Since you asked...yes. And what you describe has never been my experience. Most first lvl monsters, in the right numbers, are tough for first lvl characters in 3E, and in every iteration before that.

Did you ever fight Minions in 4E? They are not paper tigers. They kill you if you ignore them or treat them as if they were no threat. Just like any other monster of their level. It's just that you get 4 of them instead of 1 of them pitted against you. Fighting through a horde of Orc Minions can be a spectacularly rewarding experience, because bodies are dropping left and right. But... they can actually overpower you.

Also, yes. And what you describe has never been my experience. I'm currently in a weekly 4e game, and I can assure you that when we ID which of the enemies are minions, we ignore them and their 5 fixed damage in favor of teaming up on the real enemies, who invariably have greater firepower. Thats not to say that I'd want to be surrounded by 8 minions, but ASAIC thats easily remedied with proper battlefield management and positioning.

Again, I just don't get the same thrill "dropping bodies left and right" when those bodies had 1 single hp, and I could've felled them wielding a sprite's dagger.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I had a lair full of human cultists - mostly low-level bandits. I used the 2nd-level human bandit for the MM at first. When we got into combat with these guys the PCs were 7th or 8th level. It was pretty lame. They couldn't hit the PCs but they had too many HP.

I figured I'd change them into the 7th level human minions for next time.

I completely understand why you would use minions in this situation. The nature of the scaling level system makes using lower level monsters a very messy option. If the 1E or OSRIC rules were used those 2nd level bandits could still be decent challenge to a 7th/8th level party in sufficient numbers.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Serious question to RC (and others anti-minions)

Would the minions rules be AS bad to you if the WOTC designers had stuck to their *original* minions rules (which did have minions gaining small bits of HP - Vampire level 8 minions had 6 HP IIRC)

This would be a step in the right direction.

My preference would be that minions have normal hit points for their level, and their "minion-ness" gives the attacking PC a multiplier to his or her damage.

This would make them at least a little sturdier, and add some small percent chance that the minion will live if low or minimum damage is rolled.

Chance is good. Thats where the fun is for me.

 

[Obryn]

Also, yes. And what you describe has never been my experience. I'm currently in a weekly 4e game, and I can assure you that when we ID which of the enemies are minions, we ignore them and their 5 fixed damage in favor of teaming up on the real enemies, who invariably have greater firepower. Thats not to say that I'd want to be surrounded by 8 minions, but ASAIC thats easily remedied with proper battlefield management and positioning.

This is part of why I double the number of minions. Frankly, they are overvalued by RAW. Having twice as many makes them somewhat scary again.

As for their threat... sufficient low-level minions can be a huge threat when paired with ... well, just about anything, but particularly brutes and anything with extra damage on combat advantage. Even low-power minions become frightening when they're all Aiding Another with more dangerous foes.

Their damage can be lackluster, especially if you don't double them. I think ranged minions work pretty fine as-is, though; they can spread out for defense against area attacks, and can stay out of threatening range pretty easily.

-O

 

[Ourph]

If you believed what I've told you, you would not have asked the question because the answer to your question's already been said.

joe b.

Do you have a post# you can point me to, because I'm not seeing this particular issue addressed anywhere else. I'm seeing a lot of assertions that creatures who die if they take 1hp of damage are too fragile to exist in a world that makes "sense" but nobody has addressed how that jives with the existence of just such fragile creatures in editions without the minion mechanic.

 

[ST]

jgbrowning, I'm using your points to extend my argument, so please don't take this as a straight "nuh uh" rebuttal. This is just me comparing and contrasting my opinion with yours.

There's more play in role-playing games than what just occurs between the players and the GM. For those who prefer playing in a pretend world that exists independently of the PCs, there's the game the GM (and the player) plays alone. In this aspect of roleplay the rules function not only as directions on what widgets can do what while at the table, but as guidelines to how to create a "pretend reality" wherein those (player or GM) who prefer to role-play as if the world exists independent of the PCs find help in creating that independent world based upon the rules expectations.

I disagree -- I fundamentally don't believe that the version of the game world that exists only in the GM's head is actually part of the game. It's prep.

Stuff isn't part of the game at the table until it is introduced. After it's introduced, it only matters to the GM whether it was previously extant in his head or improvised, since he's the only one that knows.

I see how there's pleasure to be had in building within the "test server" version of the game world that exists only in the GM's head, and that's a popular activity among GMs, but I don't think it ultimately relates to the actual roleplaying game at the table, the thing that gets played. My experience is that most of the time, the extreme detail in the GM's version of the imagined world is illusory -- stuff in the shared imagined world, which is the version of the world the game at the table takes place in, is blurred with the fact that it's a consensus among multiple people. Stuff happens, is seen, is felt, smelled, etc., it's a dirtier place than the one in the GM's head. Less Platonic, less ideal simulation.

The reason I keep hammering this point is because I think it's key to the discussion. 3.x is a toolkit that works equally well to play at the table or in the GM's solo version. That it gives GMs guidelines to imagine a rich, developed world is a thing that makes those GMs like it. Heck, it needed to do that, since GM prep time was fairly intensive. But I literally don't see that as a gameplay issue.

As I said, one type of roleplaying is "The world exists to interact with the PCs" type, and what you've posted is the calling-card of that type. That isn't the only type of roleplaying, however.

Again, I'm arguing here more in a terminology sense than "Nuh uh, you're wrong", but again I disagree. This could be my own personal glitch, or whatever.

My point is that roleplaying (in terms of what 3.x and 4e are trying to do,so that it's not a sprawling "what is roleplaying?" question) is a multiplayer activity. Fundamentally. At least two people involved. As such, there will be a shared imagined space, and that's the "game world". Yeah, I know, it's hard to discuss things that are both shared and imaginary, but if I type "There's a red apple, kind of soft, with a brown spot on the top," I just shared something imagined.

The way I see it, it's important that the shared imagined space feel real, feel supported by mechanics, backstory, etc. in various ways. However, because it's imagined, whether it seems firmly supported, that is "real", is what matters, rather than whether or not it is actually firmly supported.

That's why I argue vehemently that no, the kind of roleplaying where it's really really important that the GM's solo version of the game world is mechanically supported is not just "another kind of roleplaying", it's roleplaying with an additional GM-only activity bolted on the side. Which is totally cool. I'm saying that the world can be just as real and consistent in play even if the prep was done in a different fashion.

I totally agree in every way that everyone imagining the shared game world should see it as a solid thing that makes its own sense. That phrase "The world just exists for the players" is too vague there. In one sense, it's literally true in all roleplaying games, the stuff that isn't played, isn't played.. In another sense, it can imply that the world is disposable or somehow less meaningful or important than the players, which I don't think any of us are looking for. The world can come into existence only as needed for the players, and yet be consistent and have a weight and realism all its own. My take is for it do have that heft, everybody at the table, not just the GM, needs to have that buy-in for what the world feels like and how to describe stuff in that context. I think it's much more of a communications skill than a factor of prep, in a lot of cases. That's just my opinon, of course.