What Enemies Will You Not Use in Your Campaigns?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Mooks can be useful, if played straight as hired muscle rather than suicidal fanatics who fight to the death.

I think you might have just fallen outside the boundaries of "mook" as I've seen the term used.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by RedMattis

While I'm not even on the same continent as the concept of being prude, I prefer to keep any kind of eroticism off the table. For example, if I have Succubi och Incubi I'll generally have them using a life-draining touch to conventionally assault; rather than actually jumping anyone's bones (or at least keep the half-demon-creation behind the curtains).

This isn't really part of the original topic, since I don't consider "enemies" to be a big part of "sexual content" (with admitted exceptions such as Batman/Catwoman). But I'd note that with my established player circle in San Diego, campaigns ranged from G-rated (the campaign set in Middle-Earth where I said "everything between the first kiss and the birth of the first child will take place off camera") to X-rated (among others, the campaign whose scenes largely took place in a colored sporting house in 1930s New Orleans).

[ericthered]

I'm torn on mooks. I almost never use human grunts who don't have histories, emotions, and so forth. They all come from somewhere and have motivations, and they can't be replaced.



But I've got some exceptions, notably mindless undead and some robots. I don't use them a lot, but when I do, I'll use them like mooks. They're uncreative, don't really run away, and they're largely expendable, depending on circumstances. But I still try to make the folks commanding them willy, because they are a resource, however cheap.


So I'm torn. I don't use mooks... unless I do.



I'm very fond of low-combat games though, so it comes up less often than you'd think. Its fun to play 8 sessions without combat and then watch the investigation-oriented PC's get nervous because the other guy might have a gun.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I'm torn on mooks. I almost never use human grunts who don't have histories, emotions, and so forth. They all come from somewhere and have motivations, and they can't be replaced.

But I've got some exceptions, notably mindless undead and some robots. I don't use them a lot, but when I do, I'll use them like mooks. They're uncreative, don't really run away, and they're largely expendable, depending on circumstances. But I still try to make the folks commanding them willy, because they are a resource, however cheap.

Wanting motivations and realistic decisions is one side of this for me. But the other side is that I feel that combat should be dangerous: If you get into a fight, even with a "mook," there ought to be a chance that you'll lose, and that you'll be seriously harmed by losing. Or, from the other side, if you're in no more danger than an adult fighting a toddler, if the prospect of the fight doesn't cause any adrenalin to flow, then there's no justification for giving it camera time. Cut to "Once you defeat the storm troopers. . . ."

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Originally Posted by whswhs

...if the prospect of the fight doesn't cause any adrenalin to flow, then there's no justification for giving it camera time.

Unless you just want to pull off cool moves. But that only really works if you have very good imaginations or an actual camera.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

Unless you just want to pull off cool moves. But that only really works if you have very good imaginations or an actual camera.

Or cool abilities. If you're playing with proper powers, it can be fun to play out just how ridiculously powerful you are. Now you don't do that every time, just the first few.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Wanting motivations and realistic decisions is one side of this for me. But the other side is that I feel that combat should be dangerous: If you get into a fight, even with a "mook," there ought to be a chance that you'll lose, and that you'll be seriously harmed by losing.

There isn't much I can do with dead PCs, but I want a lot of action, so I decided long ago to incorporate one of my favorite genres, pulp action, to generally make sure there will be fights but they will rarely be lethal to a PC.

Or, from the other side, if you're in no more danger than an adult fighting a toddler, if the prospect of the fight doesn't cause any adrenalin to flow, then there's no justification for giving it camera time. Cut to "Once you defeat the storm troopers. . . ."

Because a couple of storm troopers might get in lucky hits, seriously wound a couple of characters, and the party's mission becomes harder.

[Kalzazz]

Sometimes the mooks get lucky

If your not immune to gunfire some random mook firing a AKM your way might sting

It gives the PCs a chance to be cool and buzzsaw a couple dozen guys, and contrasts with the hopefully stiff opposition of a proper boss fight. Or they might be filler, Shredder, Bebop and Rocksteady might be named foes, but they need Foor soldiers to fill the ranks

Also they often have ways to bypass mooks. So fighting isn't always required. Often looks are used as living tripwires, a villain doesn't expect them to stop a party of Heroes, but he does expect to hear sounds if fighting and get on with his plan

As much as anything the looks define my modern campaign because the players know they will have their PCs faced with a dozen goons with AKMs more than once, so if the PC can't handle it time to reevaluate choices

[whswhs]

I don't think I run that kind of games.

[ericthered]

Hoping the mooks will get lucky feels like the GM fishing for crits.