[DF][Combat Rules] Informal Poll/Advice: who uses "mook" rules?

[Langy]

Then again, getting set on fire should really cause a fright check, and that in itself should cause the goblins to stop being a threat.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Langy

Then again, getting set on fire should really cause a fright check, and that in itself should cause the goblins to stop being a threat.

This is a nice way of distinguishing mooks.

Every time they take a wound, they should roll a fright check, possibly at some sort of penalty if the foe is particularly intimidating. If they fail (and you could penalize it by injury, though that runs into some issues too), they flee. If they see one of their companions take a mortal wound, get killed, maybe even suffer knockback, they might also roll a fright check. Failure? Run like hell.

Boom. 1 HP triggers a fright check, which Joe Average has a 50% chance of failing. Ignore the +5 for being in combat; they're mooks, and not well motivated. That's why they're mooks.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

This is a nice way of distinguishing mooks.

Every time they take a wound, they should roll a fright check, possibly at some sort of penalty if the foe is particularly intimidating. If they fail (and you could penalize it by injury, though that runs into some issues too), they flee. If they see one of their companions take a mortal wound, get killed, maybe even suffer knockback, they might also roll a fright check. Failure? Run like hell.

Boom. 1 HP triggers a fright check, which Joe Average has a 50% chance of failing. Ignore the +5 for being in combat; they're mooks, and not well motivated. That's why they're mooks.

They're mooks. They should automatically fail fright checks (and making them actually roll them defeats the purpose of the mook rules, which is to simplify gameplay). My point was kinda that 'failing a fright check' and 'dying' is pretty indistinguishable in the middle of a DF combat, except for the fluff.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by apoc527

Just to jump in, it does somewhat appear that you (Anthony) are flipping the mook rules in DF2 on their head.

That's deliberate. If I want gimpy critters, I'll just make them gimpy the normal way. The only use I have for 'mook' rules is for a low-bookkeeping monster.

[Wolf]

One thing that I like using mooks on is a cinematic "guard"

As a GM and a player, there is nothing I can't stand more than the "let's just take out the guard and infiltrate the [dungeon, station, base, etc.]" in a cinematic game that is (games focusing on realism are not applicable to my opinion in this matter).

It started when I was running the old West End Games: Star Wars, and how hard the Storm Troopers were to take out... I swear, we'd try to get into a base, and 4 hours later we are still wearing down the same bloody troops. I instituted a "mook" rule that I don't remember currently.

I still have that problem... if guys that are really only there to wear down a bullet, or really incur a "spot check." I mean honestly, if one lives (or stays conscious after the first "volley") He trips the alarm, shouts, etc. So, they need a "one shot down" for the action to keep moving.

That's my two cents

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Anthony

'Can' does not mean 'will'. By 'can one-shot', I mean 'the normal damage of your attacks has a good chance of one-shotting that target'.

My basic point is this: the point of 'mook' rules is not to make critters easier to kill. The point is to make them less effort for the GM to deal with. A 'mook' goblin should be exactly the same effort to kill as a normal goblin, it just doesn't require the GM to track his current hit points or other status effects.

The point is your average scholar only really has a good chance of one-shotting very weak creatures, and the appropriate fix to minimizing bookkeeping is not to make anything just stronger than "very weak" immune to the scholar, unless it's kind of badass, and then it's possible he might actually do some harm to it. Any benefit you get from speeding up the game is more than offset by the fact that your noncombat specialists suddenly can't even take a mook anymore, even if it IS over a couple of turns.

The point of mook rules is mainly to give your players opponents who they can feel badass wading through. This requires a) that they are generally easy to defeat, and due to the way GURPS handles combat resolution b) an easy way to deal with large numbers of opponents without slowing the game to a crawl.

Minimizing bookkeeping is only a side-effect of throwing lots of opponents at PCs in GURPS, not the POINT of mook rules.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Langy

They're mooks. They should automatically fail fright checks (and making them actually roll them defeats the purpose of the mook rules, which is to simplify gameplay). My point was kinda that 'failing a fright check' and 'dying' is pretty indistinguishable in the middle of a DF combat, except for the fluff.

Yeah, I haven't been doing this but from now on I'll probably just assume mooks fail all resistance rolls too. It does make sense to try to reduce the bookkeeping necessary for mooks, and by and large it doesn't matter whether a goblin archer stands his ground for a couple more turns or not.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

The point is your average scholar only really has a good chance of one-shotting very weak creatures

Then he gets to be the guy who hides in a corner.

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Any benefit you get from speeding up the game is more than offset by the fact that your noncombat specialists suddenly can't even take a mook anymore, even if it IS over a couple of turns.

If the situation becomes relevant, I'll treat the critter as a non-mook for that fight.

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

The point of mook rules is mainly to give your players opponents who they can feel badass wading through.

That may be the point for you. For me, the point is that characters who are badass should be able to wade through an army of mooks without taking three hours to resolve the fight.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by apoc527

Now the poll part: who uses these rules in their DF games and when/why?

I don't run DF games, though I do use the DF2 Combat Rules in my cinematic/ish fantasy games.

1. Who uses the "1 point of damage is enough to bring down any mook" rule from DF2, pg 27? I find this rule to be somewhat outside the GURPS mindset and don't really like it, even though I understand it. Frankly, it smacks heavily of the 4th Edition of That Other Game, which had an identical rule for "minions"--they simply had 1 hp each.

I use "And Stay Down!", yes. Works rather well.

I find it to be perfectly within the GURPS mindset. GURPS is a generic, universal, role playing system. If it can't do cinematic dungeon fantasy hack-n-slash, then it isn't doing what it says on the tin. GURPS can, and does!, do these things; quite well, too. DF even sells!

GURPS is not a reality simulation. GURPS is an action-adventure game with playable levels of reality-checking; it can do other things, from high wuxia to godlike supers to cinematic fantasy to ... but its' default mode of operation is human-scale action-adventure.

2. If you use the "worthy" monsters rule and knock down monsters at 0 HP, does this reduce the threat level of the monsters to the point where many abilities aren't relevant?

It does not, no.

Should we treat the monster as dead or just at 0 hp and unconscious?

I go with HP 0 and unconscious, only doing death checks after the fight is over and the PCs have decided whether they're making sure everything is dead or not.

What if you reduce a tough orc soldier to 0 hp, but that orc soldier has HT 12 and Fit? It just doesn't seem very GURPS to make him just arbitrarily fall down.

:chuckles: See the semi-rant in my answer to your first question.

3. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding or overapplying these rules?

Maybe.

In a typical 250 point DF game, I can see why you'd want to speed up combat if you include 25 orcs to hack through. They are dead anyway, so why not speed it up, right? But in this particular instance, I'm planning on having only a few more orcs than PCs and if the orcs drop at 0 HP, the fights will be just too easy, won't they?

Then don't assign them the Fodder feature. I wouldn't assign them the Worthy feature, either. I'd assign them the Boss feature and play out combat as per normal.

Originally Posted by Anthony

That may be the point for you. For me, the point is that characters who are badass should be able to wade through an army of mooks without taking three hours to resolve the fight.

All delvers are badass. Its' kinda the definition.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

All delvers are badass. Its' kinda the definition.

Delvers are badass if they put the points into being badass. Most of the templates do so.