When/how often is it fun to thrash mooks?
David Lamb
discussions comparing various game systems, and to .dnd because that's
where the flamefest that suggested the topic started out.
Some games (Feng Shui?) have "mook rules" where a Named character is
pretty much guaranteed to beat large numbers of mooks. AD&D had its own
rule, where an n'th level fighter could make n attacks per rounds
against creatures of "less than one hit die". D&D 3.5 has much weaker
versions with Whirlwind Attack and Great Cleave. One superhero game I
skimmed a long time ago recommended an introductory encounter where the
heroes trashed ordinary criminals for a while, only to be surprised when
a Villain showed up towards the end.
From the .dnd discussion it's pretty clear that some people find
fighting mooks totally boring and pointless. My question for those who
*do* like thrashing large numbers of mooks occasionally:
How often and under what circumstances do you find trashing
mooks interesting/fun?
If that were all you did I imagine it would indeed be boring, but if it
never happened that might not be fun either.
Allen Wessels
David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> This is going to .advocacy because that's where I'm used to seeing
> discussions comparing various game systems, and to .dnd because that's
> where the flamefest that suggested the topic started out.
>
> Some games (Feng Shui?) have "mook rules" where a Named character is
> pretty much guaranteed to beat large numbers of mooks. AD&D had its own
> rule, where an n'th level fighter could make n attacks per rounds
> against creatures of "less than one hit die". D&D 3.5 has much weaker
> versions with Whirlwind Attack and Great Cleave. One superhero game I
> skimmed a long time ago recommended an introductory encounter where the
> heroes trashed ordinary criminals for a while, only to be surprised when
> a Villain showed up towards the end.
>
> From the .dnd discussion it's pretty clear that some people find
> fighting mooks totally boring and pointless. My question for those who
> *do* like thrashing large numbers of mooks occasionally:
>
> How often and under what circumstances do you find trashing
> mooks interesting/fun?
Ever few adventures, a "Seven Samurai" adventure can be fun. Or thrown
in as an encounter on the way to a major adventure. "Save the villagers"
- Allen
Yiddishwriter
adventure arc just ended or otherwise some tough battle recently
occurred, it's nice to have an easy combat when the next combat does
happen. There is fun in the play of combat game mechanics and not
having to worry my character can die while doing it allows me to enjoy
it for the sake of enjoying it. I get to appreciate just how bad-ass
my character really is. I find it a stress release.
Gerald Katz
Ben Finney
> My question for those who *do* like thrashing large numbers of mooks
> occasionally:
>
> How often and under what circumstances do you find trashing
> mooks interesting/fun?
Any time it makes my character look good and hence increases my fun.
That means: interesting descriptions of what happens in the fiction,
both my character's actions and the results.
Any time it makes *your* character entertaining and hence increases my
fun. That means: same as above, and we're all enjoying it and I feel
good for you.
Any time it makes the story interesting and hence increases my fun.
That means: it's explicitly significant and intriguing somehow that
these particular brand of mooks are being thrashed, right now, by us,
in this way.
--
\ “It's easy to play any musical instrument: all you have to do |
`\ is touch the right key at the right time and the instrument |
_o__) will play itself.” —Johann Sebastian Bach |
Ben Finney
Harold Groot
wrote:
The time it worked really well was strictly a case of "only under very
unusual circumstances". We had a game that started at 15th level and
was described by the DM as a "Power Game", with builds to be made
accordingly. When we were 25th level or so we were dumped on a
magic-null world. No Magic Items, no Spells, no Spell-likes, no
Supernatural Abilities, just Masterwork Weapons and Extraordinary
Abilities.
We did what he expected, joining up with a nomadic people who were
headed the way we needed to go (the exit point was 3000 miles away
across country, and they knew the way), and fighting their enemies
with them as needed as we went. Usually we would just clear out the
relatively small numbers of enemies that were near us, while the
nomadic people were also fighting (spread out over a large area). Our
contribution was only a small part of the much larger battles.
At one point, however, the two Mondo-Fighter-Types in our party were
dropped into the middle of armies of a thousand or so enemy warriors.
It was no contest. The DM knew our characters were tough, but by
taking away our magic and giving us so many opponents (I believe the
lowest were 8th level fighters with many being higher) I guess he was
thinking he might prevail by attrition (via rolling 20s if nothing
else). Even the DM (a notorious Power Gamer) was unprepared for how
quickly we were mowing down the foes and how little damage we were
taking in return.
Once that battle was over (the DM took as many casualties as he could
stand, then had the rest of them rout), we never fought mooks again.
We got off that world and went back to fighting small numbers of
Epic-level foes.
Parvati V
> Some games (Feng Shui?) have "mook rules" where a Named character is
> pretty much guaranteed to beat large numbers of mooks. AD&D had its
> own rule, where an n'th level fighter could make n attacks per rounds
> against creatures of "less than one hit die". D&D 3.5 has much
> weaker versions with Whirlwind Attack and Great Cleave.
D&D4 has a full version of this rule, featuring minion monsters who only
have 1 HP (but they are never killed by missed attacks even with attacks
that deal some damage on a miss).
They still have normal defenses and can prove dangerous to the
characters, especially in numbers (and they are /meant/ to be there in
numbers).
> How often and under what circumstances do you find trashing mooks
> interesting/fun?
When they are complemented by a potent villain (solo monster) and/or by
other hazards, such as complicated traps or threatening terrain, basically.
This also allows those characters with area attacks to shine.
Parvati V
--
"Cosa e' celvello? Pai non ha cosa del genele" - Pai, 3x3 occhi
UnaMoleDiDadi (TreEmme Torino): http://umdd.altervista.org/
http://parvatiquinta.blogspot.com/
David Lamb
> David Lamb wrote:
>> How often and under what circumstances do you find trashing mooks
>> interesting/fun?
>
> When they are complemented by a potent villain (solo monster) and/or by
> other hazards, such as complicated traps or threatening terrain, basically.
> This also allows those characters with area attacks to shine.
That reminds me of an old article, possibly from an early Dragon, about
"Tucker's Kobolds". They were ordinary kobolds, I think in a version of
xD&D where kobolds never got character levels, but they were played so
intelligently that they were a real threat to parties several levels
above them.
Parvati V
> That reminds me of an old article, possibly from an early Dragon,
> about "Tucker's Kobolds". They were ordinary kobolds, I think in a
> version of xD&D where kobolds never got character levels, but they
> were played so intelligently that they were a real threat to parties
> several levels above them.
4E minions are built around that concept. Weaklings that can spice
things up.
They are given a level and defenses and +hit comparable to those of PCs
of the same level though, so that they are easier to use for GMs as a
credible threat to the group.
Erol K. Bayburt
wrote:
>This is going to .advocacy because that's where I'm used to seeing
My thoughts:
o IME fights vs mooks are much more fun for players than for GMs. As a
result, GMs tend to underestimate how much fun they are for their
players, tend to underuse mooks, and tend to make the mistake of
trying to "spice up" mook encounters in various ways in order to make
them "more interesting."
o From the players side of the table, I'm fine with mooks being a
large minority to a slight majority of all combat encounters. From the
GM side, it's less fun, but I tell myself that I'm running the game
for the players to have fun.
o It's fairly important to have large numbers of mooks. Having to
"share" a mook with another PC isn't much fun. Likewise it's not much
fun if the other PCs manage to take out all the mooks before your PC
has a chance to do anything. My preference is for there to be between
2 and 8 mooks per PC.
o It's OK if a fight vs mooks takes 2-3 turns. Being able to wipe out
the mooks in a single turn (or less than a turn) does detract from the
fun, even for the players.
o It's important to avoid making mooks into "eggshells armed with
sledgehammers." A mook's damage shouldn't be much more than what is
needed to take out another mook. Similarly, a mook's chances to hit
should be around 50% or a little less vs another mook (and ideally
less than that vs a PC-type character).
So my goal for a fight vs mooks would be for 1-2 dozen mooks vs a
group of 4 PCs, the fight lasting 2-3 turns, and a roughly 50-50
chance of the PCs coming out of the fight with either no damage or
slight damage. (This last will be dependant on the game system - in
3.x DnD, a "no damage" result will be hard to arrange, but the mook
fight should be a standard-to-easy encounter.)
- One last thought. The mooks need to at least *look* half-way tough.
It helps if they're tough enough to beat up on non-combatants and are
at least tolerably competent against other mooks. It's actually fairly
important that they be physically as big or bigger than the PCs,
unless a *really* large number are being used. The thrust is that it
needs to be plausable for the mooks to underestimate the PCs - because
if they don't, and are played half-way realistically, then they'll
come off as completely pathetic.
- One other last thought. To take a slightly sideways look at
"fighting mooks being fun" consider Steve Jackson's classic microgame
_Ogre_. It's a by-the-gods *wargame*, and the basic scenario is a buff
cybertank vs a bunch of "mook" armor & powered infantry units. And
it's played for fun.
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>Parvati V wrote:
It wasn't that early, mid 80s iirc.
The kobolds were played intelligently, the pcs not so much.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
WDS
> - One other last thought. To take a slightly sideways look at
> "fighting mooks being fun" consider Steve Jackson's classic microgame
> _Ogre_. It's a by-the-gods *wargame*, and the basic scenario is a buff
> cybertank vs a bunch of "mook" armor & powered infantry units. And
> it's played for fun.
Not really because the armor units have a good chance of winning.
Mooks don't.
David Lamb
> - One other last thought. To take a slightly sideways look at
> "fighting mooks being fun" consider Steve Jackson's classic microgame
> _Ogre_. It's a by-the-gods *wargame*, and the basic scenario is a buff
> cybertank vs a bunch of "mook" armor & powered infantry units. And
> it's played for fun.
If my college housemate plays the "mooks", the Ogre player had better be
very, very good!
Yiddishwriter
> Ero...@aol.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think you would like 4E minions which are monsters that pack
the punch of monsters but only have 1 hit point.
I get the concept they are going for. You see it a lot in movies and
tv shows where the Hero kills/knocks out the zillions of cronies who
attack him with one punch/sword stab/martial art maneuver/gun shot,
while the Lieutenants take a bit longer, and the BBEG fight is an epic
battle of the ages. It's supposed to show just how tough the Hero is,
how good the Lieutenants are, and how badass the BBEG is.
However, it gets tiresome fast when I see it all the time in movies
and tv shows, and to have it happen while playing the game would be
anti-climactic to me. I'm facing a guy who's a serious threat to my
health, and I knock him out with one swordswing for 1d8+3 damage? At
1st or 2nd level that's fine, but when I'm 10th level, 15th level,
it's WTF? I still like the Mook Combat and how easy it is to defeat a
Mook, but I'd like to have the illusion I earned the kill by having to
make some effort. A very easy win is fine once in a while, but in the
4E perspective, it's practically every combat. The minions' lethality
against the party isn't that much different from the Lieutenants and
BBEG, so you *have* to attack them, but to be killed so easily ...
It's like that Twilight Zone episode where a gangster dies but thinks
he's in heaven. He wins every poker hand. He hits the jackpot with
every slot machine. He can even rob a bank, and there will be no cops
to stop him. Ever woman will sleep with him. He learns he's not in
Heaven. You can't enjoy winning without the risk of losing.
Gerald Katz
Parvati V
> I don't think you would like 4E minions which are monsters that pack
> the punch of monsters but only have 1 hit point.
They also have reduced damage and they usually lack special attacks that
inflict negative conditions on PCs (such as slowed, dazed, not even
knocked prone etc.).
> However, it gets tiresome fast when I see it all the time in movies
> and tv shows, and to have it happen while playing the game would be
> anti-climactic to me. I'm facing a guy who's a serious threat to my
> health, and I knock him out with one swordswing for 1d8+3 damage?
Minions fill a supportive role for their Lieutenants, mostly, in my
games. They are a threat comparable to terrain and traps.
Maybe, of course, it's just that I see and use them like that, so they
end up as an incarnation of that concept.
> A very easy win is fine once in a while, but in the 4E perspective,
> it's practically every combat.
I usually stage few but tough fights. Minions or not, they are always
quite memorable.
(and with one group, I usually have to pull my punches. Some of those
players simply don't like to think tactically. I should really employ
more minions there - normal monster fights tend to drag way too much,
and that's not fun either)
Peter Knutsen
> I can't give an exact time frame other than "once in a while". If an
> adventure arc just ended or otherwise some tough battle recently
> occurred, it's nice to have an easy combat when the next combat does
> happen. There is fun in the play of combat game mechanics and not
> having to worry my character can die while doing it allows me to enjoy
Your character also gets much better opportunity to express his
personality. When he's on top of the fight, he can choose combat options
that are more flashy than they are efficient, and still win.
"Why did you do it that way? Why did you kill those six robbers
bare-handed, instead of drawing your sword?" / "Because I can..."
Same goes for less-challenging non-combat problems. More opportunity to
roleplay.
> it for the sake of enjoying it. I get to appreciate just how bad-ass
> my character really is. I find it a stress release.
Yup, that too.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
WDS
> Yiddishwriter wrote:
> > it for the sake of enjoying it. I get to appreciate just how bad-ass
> > my character really is. I find it a stress release.
>
> Yup, that too.
It's important as a GM to let the players feel that they are kick-ass
every once-in-a-while. What's the point of being supposedly tough if
everything you meet can kick YOUR ass anyway? You might as well just
stick to being beginning characters at that point.
It works especially well if they re-encounter something that they had
great difficulty with early on and now can handle easily. I know as a
player that I especially enjoy those encounters. "Not so tough NOW
are you, eh?"
Peter Knutsen
> It's important as a GM to let the players feel that they are kick-ass
> every once-in-a-while. What's the point of being supposedly tough if
> everything you meet can kick YOUR ass anyway? You might as well just
> stick to being beginning characters at that point.
More generally, part of the GM's job is to make sure the players'
characters understand that they are in a world - a realistic world. One
in which, as they increase in skill, they gradually get "on top" of a
growing fraction of the world's denizens.
> It works especially well if they re-encounter something that they had
> great difficulty with early on and now can handle easily. I know as a
> player that I especially enjoy those encounters. "Not so tough NOW
> are you, eh?"
Yes. Some "CRPGs" adjust enemies according to the level of the player
character, thereby starkly reducing the players' sense (since it's not
an actual roleplaying game, it isn't proper to talk about what the
character's sense or perspective is) of being in a realistic world.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Erol K. Bayburt
<foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>I don't think you would like 4E minions which are monsters that pack
>the punch of monsters but only have 1 hit point.
You can put a period after "4E" :)
>
>I get the concept they are going for. You see it a lot in movies and
>tv shows where the Hero kills/knocks out the zillions of cronies who
>attack him with one punch/sword stab/martial art maneuver/gun shot,
>while the Lieutenants take a bit longer, and the BBEG fight is an epic
>battle of the ages. It's supposed to show just how tough the Hero is,
>how good the Lieutenants are, and how badass the BBEG is.
>
>However, it gets tiresome fast when I see it all the time in movies
>and tv shows, and to have it happen while playing the game would be
>anti-climactic to me.
I guess mileage varies.
>I'm facing a guy who's a serious threat to my
>health, and I knock him out with one swordswing for 1d8+3 damage? At
>1st or 2nd level that's fine, but when I'm 10th level, 15th level,
>it's WTF?
This I don't get. A 1st or 2nd level character hits an opponent and
the opponent goes down. And that's fine. But when the character gets
up there in levels he hits an equivalent opponent and it's not fine
that the same thing happens?
>I still like the Mook Combat and how easy it is to defeat a
>Mook, but I'd like to have the illusion I earned the kill by having to
>make some effort.
That's what the Lieutenants and BBEGs are for. Mooks are there to
satisfy the lust of "I can take out an opponent with a single mighty
blow," because it is a bad thing to allow one-shot wins against foes
who are more nearly PC equivalent (which in turn is because it's a bad
thing to allow one-shot wins against a PC.)
>A very easy win is fine once in a while, but in the
>4E perspective, it's practically every combat. The minions' lethality
>against the party isn't that much different from the Lieutenants and
>BBEG, so you *have* to attack them, but to be killed so easily ...
>It's like that Twilight Zone episode where a gangster dies but thinks
>he's in heaven. He wins every poker hand. He hits the jackpot with
>every slot machine. He can even rob a bank, and there will be no cops
>to stop him. Ever woman will sleep with him. He learns he's not in
>Heaven. You can't enjoy winning without the risk of losing.
Mileage really does vary.
A few years back, Mary Kuhner posted a message to r.g.f.advocacy that
I think gets to the meat of the matter better than I could reproduce,
so I'll just quote her:
======
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/998bf7b3ebbc6647?hl=en
#RPGs and video games differ from most ordinary board games in that
#there doesn't have to be a loser. I think it's reasonable that they
#attract mindsets which aren't very interested in losing; and a lot
#of RPG groups successfully cater to this.
#
#If I enter into playing, say, chess with the expectation I will never
#lose, I'm being an idiot and I'm bound to be disappointed. Not even
#the World Champion gets that. But if I enter into _Heroes of Might
#and Magic IV_ (which is what I'm currently playing) with the
#expectation that I won't lose, I'm not hurting anyone, and it's not
#unreasonable that I may get what I want. (Especially if I turn the
#difficulty down--and I may yet do that, because the losses are really
#more annoying than challenging.)
#
#Whether the player still wants it when she gets it is another
question,
#but for at least some players in some situations the answer is "yes."
#I don't think I would still be playing _Heroes_ if I lost even 1/3
#of the time. In a board game, I know I have to give my opponent
#a fair shot, but here there's no such obligation; the only thing
#against winning all the time is that it may detract from the
challenge,
#and for me, right now, I'd rather win than have a really strong
#challenge.
#
#If this is a personality flaw it's an awfully common one; I think
#it's better just regarded as a preference.
#
#A common problem with such games is that they are entertaining for
#the players but not for the GM. I get tired of having my NPCs
#wiped out time and again; I spoiled a campaign recently by
engineering
#a TPK in the attempt to make things "a bit more challenging." Clearly
#I overshot, but by game contract I shouldn't even have been trying.
=======
I'll add that it is a problem for me on the player's side of the table
when the win is always too *quick*, but the solution to that problem
isn't to toughen up the mooks until they're no longer really mooks.
Rather the solution is to use more mooks - more than the PCs can take
down in a single turn, more mooks than the PCs have attacks. It also
is good if the PC's chance to hit a mook is "only" in the 70-90%
range, rather than being an auto-hit as well as an auto-kill-when-hit.
--
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com
Fox1
degree found in the game that coined the term or in 4E.
I do however often have the players encounter far weaker foes in
numbers, or foes of mixed abilities (with greater numbers of weaker
foes, than equal or powerful ones). The battles that result are much
like that near the end of the second Lord of the Rings Movies. And of
course, those weaker foes are in themselves a danger unless handled
correctly.
Call them mooks I suppose. Whatever, but I consider them important to
both represent the genre and to provide the players with a good range
of play experiences.
Peter Knutsen
One thing I consider important is *not* to disrespect the choices made
by the player during character creation, and the choices made by the
character during play.
Mook rules which make damage rolls irrelevant disrespect characters who
bother to carry around encumbering heavy weapons, and also well as
players who choose damage-increasing abilities such as the Weapon
Specialziation feat from D&D3/3.5.
Don't make the Barbarian look *stupid* for carrying around a two-hander.
Make it *worth* *his* *while* that he's eating the encumbrance, and is
suffering the reduced defence due to not having a shield. Never used
stupid rules like "mooks die as soon as they take 1 HP of damage".
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Rick Pikul
> Make it *worth* *his* *while* that he's eating the encumbrance, and is
> suffering the reduced defence due to not having a shield. Never used
> stupid rules like "mooks die as soon as they take 1 HP of damage".
What do you think of using 'binary damage' rules for masses of weaker
creatures? Something along the lines of "any hit doing 8 or more damage
drops a mook, lesser damage is not tracked."
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Peter Knutsen
That makes a character with an 1d6 or 1d6+1 weapon worthless against
such mooks.
I mean, imagine two PCs up against 10 mooks and 1 boss. One PC has an
1d7 weapon and a fairly poor combat skill. The other PC has an 1d10
weapon and a much better combat skill. What ought they do to?
If using binary damage rules, and assuming both PCs are familiar with
the laws of physics and physiology that apply in the world they live in,
and that they are clever enough to see the difference between mooks and
real people, the weak PC will try to reach the boss as fast as possible
so that he can start attriting the boss' HP, while the skilled PC will
deal with the mooks.
Saying "even 1 HP of damage is instant-death for any mook" is bad, but
not keeping track of mook HP is bad too.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Matthew Miller
> Mook rules which make damage rolls irrelevant disrespect characters who
> bother to carry around encumbering heavy weapons, and also well as
> players who choose damage-increasing abilities such as the Weapon
> Specialziation feat from D&D3/3.5.
> Don't make the Barbarian look *stupid* for carrying around a two-hander.
> Make it *worth* *his* *while* that he's eating the encumbrance, and is
> suffering the reduced defence due to not having a shield. Never used
> stupid rules like "mooks die as soon as they take 1 HP of damage".
One wouldn't want to use mooks/minions all of the time. They're a place for
the characters with area-of-effect spells and abilities like whirlwind
attack to shine. (Maybe even that barbarian has some ability like that for
just this sort of situation.) Likewise, sometimes having a single really
tough target doesn't mean the wizard is stupid for knowing fireball.
--
Matthew Miller
Erol K. Bayburt
I find it to be unrealistic GM micromanagement if the game world
*never* "disrespects" the choices made by a player or PC. Sometimes a
honking big two-handed sword or greatax will be overkill, and
sometimes the barbarian will be able to grin and say "don't bring a
puny little knife to a greatax fight."
The thing is to have a world with variety, both because variety is
more interesting & fun to encounter in itself, and because it allows
more variety among the PCs - it discourages players from converging on
a handful of hyper-specialized hyper-optimized types. Mooks shouldn't
be all of combat, or even a large majority of combat, but they're a
safe choice for a large minority of combat encounters because
characters who aren't anti-mook specialists can still do reasonably
well against them. A barbarian with a greatax may look crude & clumsy
fighting mooks, but he won't be sit-on-his-hands useless the way a
specialized light-weapon finesse-rogue would be against foes with high
DR and immunity to crit & sneak attack damage.
A world that always manages to "respect" character-creation and in
game character choices with every encounter, on the other hand, will
end up being sa distorted and ulitmately uninteresting lump of GM
putty.
LL
I used this rule of thumb occasionally:
One hit above X points OR two hits each below X points: dead mook
Most of the time I track their hp exactly.
LL
Fox1
> One thing I consider important is *not* to disrespect the choices made
> by the player during character creation, and the choices made by the
> character during play.
>
> Mook rules which make damage rolls irrelevant disrespect characters who
> bother to carry around encumbering heavy weapons, and also well as
> players who choose damage-increasing abilities such as the Weapon
> Specialziation feat from D&D3/3.5.
This isn't a problem as such in the games I play, mostly because
damage remains unchanged (single hits don't always kill)- only the
skill level of the opponents do. Much of this exchange is based upon
ever increasing HP systems like D&D. There are other methods, and they
produce different results.
-gleichman (my ISP has dropped newsgroups, so it's google account from
now on. Must change my displayed name).
Fox1
> A world that always manages to "respect" character-creation and in
> game character choices with every encounter, on the other hand, will
> end up being sa distorted and ulitmately uninteresting lump of GM
> putty.
I think you should split up "character-creation" and "in-game
character choices". One may do one without the other, and I'd agree
with you on the second but not the first.
-gleichman
Peter Knutsen
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:10:15 +0200, Peter Knutsen
>>by the player during character creation, and the choices made by the
>>character during play.
>>
>>Mook rules which make damage rolls irrelevant disrespect characters who
>>bother to carry around encumbering heavy weapons, and also well as
>>players who choose damage-increasing abilities such as the Weapon
>>Specialziation feat from D&D3/3.5.
>>
>>Don't make the Barbarian look *stupid* for carrying around a two-hander.
>>
>>Make it *worth* *his* *while* that he's eating the encumbrance, and is
>>suffering the reduced defence due to not having a shield. Never used
>>stupid rules like "mooks die as soon as they take 1 HP of damage".
>
> I find it to be unrealistic GM micromanagement if the game world
> *never* "disrespects" the choices made by a player or PC. Sometimes a
It doesn't really make sense to me to talk about disrespecting player or
character choice, unless it is something that happens frequently.
Like in Feng Shui, if I spend my schtick points on schticks to increase
my weapon damage, and then find out that mooks die after 1 HP of damage
anyway, and we're spending 98% of all combat time fighting mooks.
> honking big two-handed sword or greatax will be overkill, and
> sometimes the barbarian will be able to grin and say "don't bring a
> puny little knife to a greatax fight."
I was assuming mooks would be encountered very commonly. Like in Feng
Shui. Or indeed what I imagine D&D4 is like.
> The thing is to have a world with variety, both because variety is
> more interesting & fun to encounter in itself, and because it allows
> more variety among the PCs - it discourages players from converging on
Yup.
But if an RPG system has mook rules, it's almost always because mooks
will be plentiful and encountered very frequently.
Modern Action RPG has mook rules in all but name - I don't know what to
call them yet, except it *won't* be "mooks", but that's not a problem
because the presence of many mooks does not disrespect any choices made
by players or characters. Abilities that makes you a better mook killer
gives a skill roll bonus when attacking mooks, or reduces the Action
Point cost of attacking them, or possibly gives a bonus to the damage
done - it never lets anyone auto-kill a mook so as to make weapon/attack
damage irrelevant.
> a handful of hyper-specialized hyper-optimized types. Mooks shouldn't
You mean like 1 fighter, 1 rogue, 1 cleric and 1 wizard?
> be all of combat, or even a large majority of combat, but they're a
I can't see that they won't be a large majority of combat, if there are
special rules for them.
> safe choice for a large minority of combat encounters because
> characters who aren't anti-mook specialists can still do reasonably
> well against them. A barbarian with a greatax may look crude & clumsy
> fighting mooks, but he won't be sit-on-his-hands useless the way a
> specialized light-weapon finesse-rogue would be against foes with high
> DR and immunity to crit & sneak attack damage.
>
> A world that always manages to "respect" character-creation and in
> game character choices with every encounter, on the other hand, will
> end up being sa distorted and ulitmately uninteresting lump of GM
> putty.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Erol K. Bayburt
wrote:
Ah, still infesting .advocacy, are you?
*plonk*
Peter Knutsen
> I used this rule of thumb occasionally:
> One hit above X points OR two hits each below X points: dead mook
Sounds like a lot of book-keeping trouble, but I can't see anything
wrong with it in principle.
> Most of the time I track their hp exactly.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
What's your argument for that split?
A character creation choice is one made by the player, and so should
really be called a character creation/development choice, except in some
cases it tends to fade into character choice if the character gets some
say about how he develops, e.g. if he enrolls at an unarmed combat
academy because he wants to become better at a specific aspect of
unarmed combat.
With in-game character choice, I meant decisions such as what equipment
to carry; specifically, heavy high-damage weapons or light low-damage
weapons.
In the first case, if mooks die from 1 HP of damage, then a player looks
stupid for spending opportunity cost on giving the character
damage-increasing abilities.
In the second case, the character looks stupid for choosing to carry
around a two-handed sword (or an LMG).
Since all of these are - and ought to be legitimate choices, it's wrong
to have the game mechancis be such that choosing them makes you (player
or character) look stupid.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> On Apr 4, 8:10 am, Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>One thing I consider important is *not* to disrespect the choices made
>>by the player during character creation, and the choices made by the
>>character during play.
>>
>>Mook rules which make damage rolls irrelevant disrespect characters who
>>bother to carry around encumbering heavy weapons, and also well as
>>players who choose damage-increasing abilities such as the Weapon
>>Specialziation feat from D&D3/3.5.
>
> This isn't a problem as such in the games I play, mostly because
> damage remains unchanged (single hits don't always kill)- only the
> skill level of the opponents do. Much of this exchange is based upon
> ever increasing HP systems like D&D. There are other methods, and they
> produce different results.
I'm not convinced that's always the reason. Feng Shui doesn't have
ever-increading hitpoints, yet has explicit mook rules.
Decipher's LOTR RPG doesn't have radically escalating hitpoints either,
but in the GM advice section there's a paragraph or two that suggests to
the GM to *ignore* *the* *rules* *of* *the* *game* and treat lower foes
of the PCs as if they were, effectively, mooks.
Kinda retarded, that first a man designs a game and then he tells those
playing the game to ignore (some of) the rules he has designed.
Much better to design rules that don't *need* to be ignored. Rules that,
when you follow them, causes fun and goodness to happen.
Like, e.g., rules for how high skill increases the damage you do.
Aragorn doesn't attrite away the hitpoints of even lieutenant orcs. He
slays them with single blows. One blow per orc lieutenant. And he does
that because he's very good with a sword.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Yiddishwriter
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:18:44 -0700 (PDT), Yiddishwriter
>
>
> >I don't think you would like 4E minions which are monsters that pack
> >the punch of monsters but only have 1 hit point.
>
> You can put a period after "4E" :)
>
>
TeeHee.
Ditto.
> >I'm facing a guy who's a serious threat to my
> >health, and I knock him out with one swordswing for 1d8+3 damage? At
> >1st or 2nd level that's fine, but when I'm 10th level, 15th level,
> >it's WTF?
>
> This I don't get. A 1st or 2nd level character hits an opponent and
> the opponent goes down. And that's fine. But when the character gets
> up there in levels he hits an equivalent opponent and it's not fine
> that the same thing happens?
>
It's the nature of the game, for me. It's a sense of inefficiency.
Why use an 11th level ability when a 1st level ability can do the
job? I don't mind defeating a bad guy in one round, so much, but it
had to be because if I didn't do what I did he'd still be up. Only
because I'm currently playing a crusader/master of nine I'm using the
following analogy example, with bias: If I use Divine Surge for +8d8
damage and killed the bad guy mook in one attack, I want it to be
because that +8d8 damage made the difference. I would feel I earned
the kill. However, had I not used a maneuver and just did a normal
attack and the bad guy would still be killed, then having used the
maneuver was an overkill and the kill would be cheapened.
Several adventures ago that actually happened in my campaign. Part of
the home city civilian population was affected by a Curse of
Domination. It wasn't the party's responsibility to end the Curse,
just protect those who were unaffected while the City Elders (our
campaign's previous characters) took care to end it. (That's actually
another not-fun issue but not relevant here. :( ). Anyway, since the
Dominated were innocent I did subdual damage. Since they were
"normal" people, I didn't need to use any maneuvers, just regular
attacks. It wasn't fun. It was too easy. I got some roleplaying
brownie points, but from a metagame perspective playing out the combat
wasn't neccessary. Eventually it was handwaved to as long as I didn't
roll a 1 I knocked someone out. Why was I even rolling dice?
I don't know. Maybe it doesn't make sense, and it is a bit
hypocritical. Perhaps the only good answer I can say is it's very
situational. Context of when it happens and why it happens matters.
> >I still like the Mook Combat and how easy it is to defeat a
> >Mook, but I'd like to have the illusion I earned the kill by having to
> >make some effort.
>
> That's what the Lieutenants and BBEGs are for. Mooks are there to
> satisfy the lust of "I can take out an opponent with a single mighty
> blow," because it is a bad thing to allow one-shot wins against foes
> who are more nearly PC equivalent (which in turn is because it's a bad
> thing to allow one-shot wins against a PC.)
>
Maybe that was the issue in my example as to why it wasn't fun.
Everyone was a mook.
> I'll add that it is a problem for me on the player's side of the table
> when the win is always too *quick*, but the solution to that problem
> isn't to toughen up the mooks until they're no longer really mooks.
> Rather the solution is to use more mooks - more than the PCs can take
> down in a single turn, more mooks than the PCs have attacks. It also
> is good if the PC's chance to hit a mook is "only" in the 70-90%
> range, rather than being an auto-hit as well as an auto-kill-when-hit.
> --
> Erol K. Bayburt
> Ero...@aol.com
I'd still want mooks, just not 1 hit point mooks. I want the mook to
go down because I'm 11th level, not because I could have knocked him
down at 1st level but just have 10 more levels. From a spellcaster
perspective, I'm ok if it is a 1st level spell that knocked them out.
If it's Magic Missile it's because it took all 5 missiles, though
perhaps hypocritical, the occasional 5 person mob and one Magic
Missile for each might have the "cool factor" if the combat context is
right. If it's Color Spray, it's because as an 11th level caster the
DC is tougher than it would have been at 1st level (Intelligence
boost, feat, prestige class ability, etc.) while the bad guys are
still at 1st level saving throws thus had a harder time making their
save against my spell.
Gerald Katz
Yiddishwriter
Similar to what I was responding to Erol. I want to have killed the
mook in one round *because* of what my character can do, not in spite
of it. 4E minions are in the "in spite of it" camp.
Gerald Katz
Rick Pikul
> Rick Pikul wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:10:15 +0200, Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>>Make it *worth* *his* *while* that he's eating the encumbrance, and is
>>>suffering the reduced defence due to not having a shield. Never used
>>>stupid rules like "mooks die as soon as they take 1 HP of damage".
>>
>> What do you think of using 'binary damage' rules for masses of weaker
>> creatures? Something along the lines of "any hit doing 8 or more damage
>> drops a mook, lesser damage is not tracked."
>
> That makes a character with an 1d6 or 1d6+1 weapon worthless against
> such mooks.
>
> I mean, imagine two PCs up against 10 mooks and 1 boss. One PC has an
> 1d7 weapon and a fairly poor combat skill. The other PC has an 1d10
> weapon and a much better combat skill. What ought they do to?
Well, that particular number was just an example. In any real use one
would base the particular number, and if you use it at all, partly on
what the various party members could do. Also, it's not really for cases
where there are such a small number of mooks that rate a drop number near
the teams max damage. It's more for cases where it is going to be a pain
tracking individual HP because the fight involves at least several dozen
very weak opponents.
However, how about this as a fix: When binary damage applies, any hit
which does not drop a mook results in a cumulative +1 to further damage
rolls, dropping a mook resets this.
> Saying "even 1 HP of damage is instant-death for any mook" is bad, but
> not keeping track of mook HP is bad too.
I will agree that binary damage rules are imperfect, but one must consider
if it is worse than the distraction of tracking many low HP creatures,
especially if they are able to shuffle who is on the line.
Rick Pikul
> -gleichman (my ISP has dropped newsgroups, so it's google account from
> now on. Must change my displayed name).
Check out http://news.individual.net/, 10 Euro per year for text
newsgroups, (other than alt.sex.*).
tussock
> Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
>> Mooks shouldn't be all of combat, or even a large majority of
>> combat, but [...]
>
> I can't see that they won't be a large majority of combat, if there are
> special rules for them.
4e isn't using them much in the modules any more, and mostly with
ordinary monsters in equal numbers, replacing the 5th monster with 4
minions, but not even in half the fights. Perhaps a quarter to a third of
the total numbers, and only a tiny fraction of the XP. There's a good few
low level monsters appearing in the place appropriate level minions
normally take.
More early on though, at least half the total numbers.
In 3e terms, mooks are just the monsters 8 or more CR less than your
effective level, the ones that don't give XP, that no one seems to use
because they aren't much fun to thrash. <shrug>
--
tussock
U'm iuel p jyx yn chycyipwlaf kyd blvlr ebyg ghpw kyd'rl sdbbp slw.
tussock
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> Saying "even 1 HP of damage is instant-death for any mook" is bad, but
>> not keeping track of mook HP is bad too.
>
> I will agree that binary damage rules are imperfect, but one must
> consider if it is worse than the distraction of tracking many low HP
> creatures, especially if they are able to shuffle who is on the line.
(Re: D&D) Would it work that way at all? You're dealing with
characters that can do copious amounts of damage, and most monsters of
that low relative level will only take a small number of hits to kill.
Even up to 3 or 4 HTK and they're easily marked as scratch sets rather
than a trail of subtraction.
A mid-high level party averaging mid-20's plus damage could treat 100
HP Hill Giants as 4 HTK mooks, 50 HP Dire Wolves at 2 HTK.
Peter Knutsen
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:30:26 +0200, Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>That makes a character with an 1d6 or 1d6+1 weapon worthless against
>>such mooks.
>>
>>I mean, imagine two PCs up against 10 mooks and 1 boss. One PC has an
>>1d7 weapon and a fairly poor combat skill. The other PC has an 1d10
>>weapon and a much better combat skill. What ought they do to?
>
> Well, that particular number was just an example. In any real use one
> would base the particular number, and if you use it at all, partly on
> what the various party members could do. Also, it's not really for cases
> where there are such a small number of mooks that rate a drop number near
> the teams max damage. It's more for cases where it is going to be a pain
> tracking individual HP because the fight involves at least several dozen
> very weak opponents.
Well, in a fixed-damage-dice situation where high skill doesn't increase
damage, e.g. any edition of D&D, you could set the threshold such that
it can just barely happen with the weakest reasonable weapon.
Say that you decided that the weakest reasonable physical-combatant has
a STR bonus of -1 and is using an 1d4 weapon. Thus the most damage he
can do is 3 HP.
So that's your threshold. This means that he has a chance to slay mooks,
but someone using an 1d6 weapon, or something without a negative STR
modifier, has a better chance, and someone at STR +1 and 1d8 weapon has
a much better chance. Someone with an STR bonus of +2 or using an 1d12
weapon, has a pretty good chance.
Still imperfect, but less so, althogh the 1d4-1 character (probably a
Wizard who is out of spells, in D&D3/3.5) will perhaps still be better
off going into melee kamikaze with the boss, while the hard Barbarian
takes care of the mooks.
> However, how about this as a fix: When binary damage applies, any hit
> which does not drop a mook results in a cumulative +1 to further damage
> rolls, dropping a mook resets this.
I'm not convinced you gain anything this way, over just tracking plain
old-fashioned HP.
>>Saying "even 1 HP of damage is instant-death for any mook" is bad, but
>>not keeping track of mook HP is bad too.
>
> I will agree that binary damage rules are imperfect, but one must consider
> if it is worse than the distraction of tracking many low HP creatures,
> especially if they are able to shuffle who is on the line.
Worth considering, yes.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
decalod85
> This is going to .advocacy because that's where I'm used to seeing
> discussions comparing various game systems, and to .dnd because that's
> where the flamefest that suggested the topic started out.
>
> Some games (Feng Shui?) have "mook rules" where a Named character is
> pretty much guaranteed to beat large numbers of mooks. AD&D had its own
> rule, where an n'th level fighter could make n attacks per rounds
> against creatures of "less than one hit die". D&D 3.5 has much weaker
> versions with Whirlwind Attack and Great Cleave. One superhero game I
> skimmed a long time ago recommended an introductory encounter where the
> heroes trashed ordinary criminals for a while, only to be surprised when
> a Villain showed up towards the end.
>
> From the .dnd discussion it's pretty clear that some people find
> fighting mooks totally boring and pointless. My question for those who
> *do* like thrashing large numbers of mooks occasionally:
>
> How often and under what circumstances do you find trashing
> mooks interesting/fun?
>
> If that were all you did I imagine it would indeed be boring, but if it
> never happened that might not be fun either.
After reading this thread, I put the party (avg. level 16) against a
horde of cr 1/2 zombies. There were commoners and 1st level warriors
mixed in with the zombies, and the PCs needed to save them.
I grabbed a ton of figs from the board game "Zombies". They worked
perfect.
They had a lot of fun using their spells and weapons to take down as
many in a round as they could. They also had a real sense of urgency
even though there was no real threat to them, but instead they were
worried about saving the citizens threatened by the zombies.
Several players commented that they did not realize how powerful their
characters were until they took down the zombie horde in just a few
rounds.
So, I think something with this much level disparity needs a driving
reason for your PCs to even care about doing it. And I think if you
do it too often, they will get very bored of it.
Rick Pikul
> Still imperfect, but less so, althogh the 1d4-1 character (probably a
> Wizard who is out of spells, in D&D3/3.5) will perhaps still be better
> off going into melee kamikaze with the boss, while the hard Barbarian
> takes care of the mooks.
Well, going up against the big guy might not be an option. Particularly
if he is on the other side of those mooks playing speed bump.
>> However, how about this as a fix: When binary damage applies, any hit
>> which does not drop a mook results in a cumulative +1 to further damage
>> rolls, dropping a mook resets this.
>
> I'm not convinced you gain anything this way, over just tracking plain
> old-fashioned HP.
Much less bookkeeping, and most of the bookkeeping is short term stuff for
the weakest guy in the party.
Peter Knutsen
[..]
> Several players commented that they did not realize how powerful their
> characters were until they took down the zombie horde in just a few
> rounds.
>
> So, I think something with this much level disparity needs a driving
> reason for your PCs to even care about doing it. And I think if you
> do it too often, they will get very bored of it.
On the other manipulatory appendace, your example clearly shows that
never doing it is *also* wrong.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Fox1
> Ah, still infesting .advocacy, are you?
>
Yes, it's truly painful for some people when those of different ideas
"infest" part of their world.
Fox1
> > I think you should split up "character-creation" and "in-game
> > character choices". One may do one without the other, and I'd agree
> > with you on the second but not the first.
>
> What's your argument for that split?
Character generation choices are made by the player with full
knowledge of the ruleset. With that in mind the result of player
choices are either plain to see, or hidden by the mechanics (not
uncommon in dice pool systems).
In the first case, the player can either avoid ineffective choices or
accept them for whatever reason. In neither case is the player
decision 'disrepected' and in neither case will the world end up to
use "Erol K. Bayburt" terms: "distorted and ulitmately uninteresting
lump of GM putty" (Interesting how someone who hates strong opinons
from the likes of myself insists on giving his own strong opinion
isn't it? Moving on....). Indeed I would consider it 'disrepecting' to
disallow players to select less effective options.
If the result of the choice is hidden, we have a different problem.
One of lying to the player. I think we can pass on this as it's not
the subject being discussed.
In-Game choices on the other hand are IMO not mechanically driven
choices like character generation or weapon selection. Rather they are
"do we attack or do we retreat" or any other wide range of non-
mechanical choice made by the players without reference to the rules.
I doubt you're of the school that thinks that any such choice should
be 'respected', i.e. provide a equal chance of success.
Fox1
> I'm not convinced that's always the reason.
Agreed, but it by far the most common cause.
> Much better to design rules that don't *need* to be ignored. Rules that,
> when you follow them, causes fun and goodness to happen.
Also agreed.
>Like, e.g., rules for how high skill increases the damage you do.
But one should take care here. What logically is the difference
between saying: A) A skilled character gets +X damage vs. non-skilled
foes and B) non-skill foes take +X damage from skilled attackers.
The answer is none. Both are in effect Mook rules and the only
difference is one of appearance to those not looking closely.
Fox1
> On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 09:33:02 -0700, Fox1 wrote:
> > -gleichman (my ISP has dropped newsgroups, so it's google account from
> > now on. Must change my displayed name).
>
> newsgroups, (other than alt.sex.*).
Thanks for the suggestion. But I don't expect this group to continue
much pass this thread so it would be wasted money.
Baird Stafford
<a483491c-4efd-4792...@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Fox1 <fox1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In-Game choices on the other hand are IMO not mechanically driven
> choices like character generation or weapon selection. Rather they are
> "do we attack or do we retreat" or any other wide range of non-
> mechanical choice made by the players without reference to the rules.
> I doubt you're of the school that thinks that any such choice should
> be 'respected', i.e. provide a equal chance of success.
Oooh! Retreat! Please retreat! My reinforcements are only a day away!
Baird
--
As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods-
They kill us for their sport.
-Gloster, in _Lear_
decalod85
They have fought mooks before, but more of a 6 or 8 level disparity,
and in smaller numbers. I literally had hundreds of zombies coming at
them all at once. A few turns from the cleric set things right pretty
darn quick, I tell you!
They won't get a ton of XP for it, and the XP they got was story bonus
type XP for saving the civilians, not killing the zombies. It took no
small amount of quick thinking and placement of attacks & spells to
pull this off.
Will in New Haven
> This is going to .advocacy because that's where I'm used to seeing
> discussions comparing various game systems, and to .dnd because that's
> where the flamefest that suggested the topic started out.
>
> Some games (Feng Shui?) have "mook rules" where a Named character is
> pretty much guaranteed to beat large numbers of mooks. AD&D had its own
> rule, where an n'th level fighter could make n attacks per rounds
> against creatures of "less than one hit die". D&D 3.5 has much weaker
> versions with Whirlwind Attack and Great Cleave. One superhero game I
> skimmed a long time ago recommended an introductory encounter where the
> heroes trashed ordinary criminals for a while, only to be surprised when
> a Villain showed up towards the end.
>
> From the .dnd discussion it's pretty clear that some people find
> fighting mooks totally boring and pointless. My question for those who
> *do* like thrashing large numbers of mooks occasionally:
>
> How often and under what circumstances do you find trashing
> mooks interesting/fun?
>
> If that were all you did I imagine it would indeed be boring, but if it
> never happened that might not be fun either.
I find this all very foreign. I have never enjoyed a fight where I
knew my tactical choices and prior strategic choices didn't matter
because I was going to slaughter all of my opponents easily anyway. I
have never let my _players_ know that they were fighting "mooks," even
when they were. I have _one_ player who thinks it would be fun to
"slaughter some helpless Orcs" once in awhile. But he has stuck with
the game for twenty years, so I guess he doesn't really mind.
--
Will in New Haven
David Lamb
Hey, I personally am glad he's back. OTOH I also like talking to
smilingcat sometimes.
David Lamb
> Eventually it was handwaved to as long as I didn't
> roll a 1 I knocked someone out. Why was I even rolling dice?
A special case of something we talked about a long time ago on
.advocacy: trying to mix detailed rules with abstract ones -- detail for
things fun to play out, abstract for ones you just wanted to get over
with quickly but where there might still be some minor doubt about the
outcome. I was left with the impression that abstract rules that
closely matched what would likely happen with the detailed ones were
pretty much impossible, and thus needed to be handwaved, but there may
have been a couple of people who didn't give up on the issue.
David Lamb
> After reading this thread, I put the party (avg. level 16) against a
> horde of cr 1/2 zombies. There were commoners and 1st level warriors
> mixed in with the zombies, and the PCs needed to save them.
> So, I think something with this much level disparity needs a driving
> reason for your PCs to even care about doing it. And I think if you
> do it too often, they will get very bored of it.
Sounds like a fun one-in-a-while encounter to me, too; "saving the
peasants" sounds like a nice complication where a combat-heavy party
might need to think about alternative tactics a bit. I can sort of
imagine additional complications where taking the zombies down
ultra-fast was only part of the solution.
decalod85
Well, elaborate dammit. I plan on using the same thing on another
group eventually...
David Lamb
I said what I did because the idea was half-baked. Basically, if there
are even a few enemy close to the NPCs who, tactically, you couldn't be
sure would go down in the first round of combat, you had to plan to get
somebody close to the peasants to protect them. Maybe zombies aren't
smart enough for this, so if they were so close the NPCs were already
doomed, but it seemed like there ought to be a possibility that stealth
could matter.
tussock
A few dozen Wights converting their way through a big town: after
starting a basic defence, let the players work out which one's in charge
(the 8 HD one), kill it, and the rest scatter for the graveyard, the
butchery, the barber's, and other places of death. A simple puzzle ontop
of the time pressure, handwave the cleanup.
Bosses that are still mooks: a Clr8 bolstering the undead or opening
up on the party, with his CR 6 Zombie Hill Giant bodyguard throwing
rocks. Comedy relief when the godlike PCs kill them in one round.
A friendly town full of Dire Charmed peasants and low level types
coming after the PCs: the trick is to walk away, nuke whoever cast the
spell, quarantine the place, and wait a few weeks for the effects to wear
off. Pichfork and torch mob at the door for style points, thinking
outside the box solution.
They're all a bit low level for 16th though. I'd use more like, say,
all the regular Mind Flayers trying to stop you when you're hunting the
big brain, and the caverns dotted with Gargantuan and Collossal
Centipedes. At that level the party should be able to see that coming and
make themselves immune to the specific threats.
If anything, avoid forcing the fight and let the PCs bypass it if
they want. That way they get all the mooks they want and no more.
Yiddishwriter
particular party member had to fight the boss because he was an Enemy
from a deck of many things he had drawn. The DM altered how it works,
but that's not relevant here. I and the rest of the party fought the
mooks - beefed up zombies.
For my character they weren't much of a threat. They could hit me
below a natural 20 but not too below. Sometimes I could kill one in
one round; sometimes it took two. However, I was only able to do so
because of the damage I could do with my character's martial strike
maneuvers. When one zombie didn't go down in my one maneuver strike,
I used White Raven Tactics on a party member whose initiative was
after the zombies. Moving his intiative to after me, he went before
the zombies and killed off the zombie I had hit. This was a fun
combat. It was easy but fun because it required using my abilities.
Gerald Katz
Warren J. Dew
AD&D had its own rule, where an n'th level fighter could make
n attacks per rounds against creatures of "less than one hit
die". D&D 3.5 has much weaker versions with Whirlwind Attack
and Great Cleave.
If you used the recommended Chainmail rules with the original D&D,
there was a similar effect: "heros" - 4th level fighters - got four
attacks per round, and "superheros" - 8th level fighters - got eight.
How often and under what circumstances do you find trashing
mooks interesting/fun?
It's fun when the fight overall is challenging or at least appears to
be.
I once played a character who was the only ground combat oriented
character in a Traveller campaign. It was very fun figuring out how
to take out half a dozen mildly competent enemy characters solo
without undue risk.
The other occasion I can remember involved a high level character
sallying from a besieged castle against hordes of enemies.
Unfortunately that one required a retreat.
Note that these were in games without explicit mook rules.
Warren J. Dew
I was left with the impression that abstract rules that closely
matched what would likely happen with the detailed ones were pretty
much impossible, and thus needed to be handwaved, but there may
have been a couple of people who didn't give up on the issue.
I haven't given up, but I haven't found anything really satisfactory,
either.
Sometimes I use statistical approximation to avoid rolling too many
dice. For example, if I have a creature that 100D8 of endurance
points, I might roll 24D8, double it, and add 108 to get a
distribution with the same mean and standard deviation as 96D8, then
add 4D8 to allow for getting odd results.
That's a fairly limited application, though, and in those cases what I
should probably do is redefine the creatures in a way that makes them
easier to roll up. Generally these are creatures that used to be
avoided like the plague when the player characters were less powerful,
but now supply the only challenging combats.
One idea I've toyed with is using a sampling approach to some
encounters. For example, there's a group of dwarves establishing a
new settlement on the opposite side of the mountains that has to hunt
frequently, but while the hunts are not completely risk free, it's
somewhat tedious to play through every single one. It would be nice
to be able to just play through that one in ten hunts where there's a
significant risk of something bad happening. Unfortunately, I haven't
yet figured out exactly what it is that makes an encounter like that
turn bad.
Warren J. Dew
gleichman
> David Lamb posts, in part:
>
> I was left with the impression that abstract rules that closely
> matched what would likely happen with the detailed ones were pretty
> much impossible, and thus needed to be handwaved, but there may
> have been a couple of people who didn't give up on the issue.
>
> I haven't given up, but I haven't found anything really satisfactory,
> either.
The solution is likely to admit that the abstract system and the
detailed one cover different conditions, i.e. that the abstract covers
the common day and typical events and thus looks more like insurance
company tables than adventure rules, while the detail rules cover
those conditions with a good chance of producing atypical results.
Another approach is to remember that in the real world, it is
exceedingly rare for individuals to match those insurance tables-
that's something only large samples can do. Indeed, one would be
foolish to think that any individual matched the results of the entire
population.
Thus all that's required of an abstract system is that it covers the
full range of possibilities- not that it matches the results of
individual hunting groups. Of course this breaks down if one runs
large number of hunting groups using detailed rules, or bends as one
runs the same hunting groups a great many times using the detailed
runs. But the point of having abstract rules in the first place is
that you don't do that.
Thus in the end (assuming detailed rules use is a subset of total
usage, say as a percentage of the total within the margin of error of
the abstract rules), any conflict between abstract and detailed can
and would be viewed as insignificant by an outside objective observer.
Indeed, here detail rules *are* the margin of error. It's only the
attachment of the designer to identical results that causes conflict.