DF monsters for non-DF Fantasy?

[mr beer]

If your players tend to use intelligent battle tactics, monsters don't. So no ganging up to take out one PC at a time, racing past/flanking fighters to swamp the wizard etc.

Stupid monsters could use even worse tactics, so All-out Attacks on characters with good defences or All out Defence after a nasty hit (because they are panicked) etc.

Most monsters die* at 0 HP. I often use this anyway for book keeping purposes.

* fall over and stop fighting.

[Bruno]

Many (most?) of the monsters are not intended to be used as 1=a threat for 5 x 250 pt pcs. For those, the answer is simply "use less". Dino men are not only modest in statistics and lore DR, but they tend to stop mid fight to eat the bodies of the fallen, which wastes actions. Horde zombies are also anemic, although they lack Unnatural - add that inn and you can probably use them in bulk (just not 40-50 at a time). Regular zombies and skeletons are certainly something you can dispense in ones and twos to get a feel for your party.

In a less gonzo fantasy game, unless a monster is motivated by Fanaticism (some should be, most not) or Berserk (few are) they should try to surrender or run if they take a major wound, if an ally takes a major wound, and some really should consider running (or at least falling back) after any wound. Injuries suck.

I've had dino men play dead after a major wound ( badly - "Ack! Me dead!" ) which is like surrendering in that they're out of the fight. And probably trying to crawl away when nobody is watching.

Also, DF assumes basically everything reacts to PCs at -5 or even worse - you aren't bound by that, and a group of three orcs is less threatening if you can have tense negotiations with them, or five dino men if you can just give them rood to go away and get out of your hair.

Anything with a weapon can be nerfed simply by downgrading the weapon or taking it away. Anything with armor can be similarly nerfed.

[Edges]

I may be in the minority, but I've never subscribed to the strategy of "balancing threat levels" in DF or otherwise. For the games I run, having the PCs face a large variation in threat levels is a plus. For us, there should be encounters that the PCs find really easy, encounters that are so challenging that they cannot be overcome by physical force (or whatever the usual hammer is for the campaign), and everything in between. We prefer encounters that have threat levels determined by what makes coherent, organic sense in the game world rather than by meta-game "balance." I find that fine-tuning the threat level takes away from the verisimilitude and, in turn, the sense of immersion. There are video games for scratching that itch.

YMMV

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Edges

I may be in the minority, but I've never subscribed to the strategy of "balancing threat levels" in DF or otherwise.

Even if you don't specifically have a plan for PCs to fight a given monster, it's worth understanding likely results if they do so.

[AlexanderHowl]

Originally Posted by Edges

I may be in the minority, but I've never subscribed to the strategy of "balancing threat levels" in DF or otherwise. For the games I run, having the PCs face a large variation in threat levels is a plus. For us, there should be encounters that the PCs find really easy, encounters that are so challenging that they cannot be overcome by physical force (or whatever the usual hammer is for the campaign), and everything in between. We prefer encounters that have threat levels determined by what makes coherent, organic sense in the game world rather than by meta-game "balance." I find that fine-tuning the threat level takes away from the verisimilitude and, in turn, the sense of immersion. There are video games for scratching that itch.

YMMV

I have to agree. It is not up to me as the GM to make sure that my PCs survive the encounters, that is up to them. If they decide to fight instead of running away or trying to talk, they have decided to take their lives into their own hands. After all, encounters generally do not give CP in GURPS, so running away or sneaking around an enemy is just as good as chopping it to bits (and can be an even better idea when it comes to resource management).

[Edges]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Even if you don't specifically have a plan for PCs to fight a given monster, it's worth understanding likely results if they do so.

Sure. I have no problem eyeballing likely outcomes once the encounter has been determined. I just have no interest in having the likely results determine the encounter in the first place.

So I don't ask myself, "What would be an appropriate encounter for the level of difficulty I want the PCs to face?" Instead I ask, "What would the established game world naturally have in this place?"

Though to be honest, this is my ideal that I work towards. In practice, those darned thoughts of difficulty manage to sneak into my plans from time to time.