How tough should creatures be?

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Silvermane

Yeah, sorry. It's 4th Ed. I was going by memory and I could have swore TL 8 was High tech cyber space stuff.

It was... but that was itself in the 80s and 90s (not even late 90s). Tech Levels like so many gaming conventions are abstractions; many historical settings will have blended Tech Levels where a society is largely one TL but significantly ahead or behind in multiple areas.

When it comes to predicting the future, its all guess work and extrapolation; once it became clear how the "Digital Age" was impacting the world, basically that became TL 8 instead of the impressive (but probably empty) promises of much popular science fiction. Remember also that from the modern vantage point, some technology can be of a TL but not available throughout; maybe cybernetics, space travel, or some other "Ultra Tech" area will still be TL8, but mid-to-late TL8 (where as we are living in "early" TL 8).

Now, more on topic - really need more information on the "failed experiments". How monstrous are they? Do the ones with a head behave different than the ones without a head? Why will the headless ones attack at all? Do they have some sort of maw that allows them to eat the PCs, or do they wander around until they die of starvation and just instinctively throttle whatever they come across? How do the monsters react to each other?

I ask because how you model them really matters. Just one headless goon, if he has some advanced sense of touch that allows it to detect movement in the air and "hone in" on the PCs, plus has Unkillable 1 (e.g. won't drop until it is dead) could be a good threat... especially if it is strong. If these monsters are just humans without body parts (including inexplicably living, headless humans) and otherwise unarmed while the one PC has a gun and sufficient ammo, the point of this encounter is to waste that ammo. ;-)

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

The first character is entitled to benefit from his choice.

Which matters when it actually matters. If it always matters, then I submit you don't have "mooks".

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Which matters when it actually matters. If it always matters, then I submit you don't have "mooks".

It can matter even if you do use mooks. They can still have DR from gear or inherent abilities, giving the character with the heavier weapon a relative advantage - the toothpick isn't likely to even penetrate. You could also use somewhat tougher mooks that ignore any damage less than a Major Wound. This is especially appropriate for exotic or supernatural enemies that possess special damage resistance, but still aren't meant to be a huge threat to heroic PCs.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Also, you need to contemplate the consequences of mobile creatures with missing heads. I believe GURPS serves you at least reasonably well here, with disads such as Deaf and Blind and No Sense of Smell, and their realistic consequences.

Of course, if they're realistically lacking nearly all senses, they're going to be very hard to make an interesting threat out of. Even if you fight them in a pitch-dark place, being deaf and having no sense of smell...

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I'm not sure that's something players can reasonably choose between. HP loss is serious in GURPS, as per the game mechanics, meaning that there is one reasonable reaction to it as a phenomenon.

Unreasonable is regrettably different from impossible though.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Any rules that says an "unnamed NPC" dies after taking 1 HP of damage, risks disregarding the weapon loadout choices made by the player characters. One character opts to lug around an insanely heavy two-handed weapon, that does a lot of damage, suffering the encumbrance during the entire session (as well as the monetary outlay for the weapon, and quite possibly much higher monetary cost per piece of ammunition), while another character decides he'll just take along a rusty tooth pick.

The first character is entitled to benefit from his choice.

Eh, the same issue arises if you're fighting more naturally frail enemies. The person who packs a 20mm anti-tank rifle or rocket launcher and winds up shooting at ordinary men, or who packs a battle rifle and faces a swarm of rats is just as out of luck as the person who brings a Desert Eagle to shoot unarmored mooks.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I don't understand the question. The Mad Doc has no knowledge of the players' characters, so it makes no sense for him to create them more or less tough depending on how tough the players' characters are.

You... do understand that there are other gaming styles that are separate from, and far more popular than, rigorous Simulationism, right..?

~~~~~

With regard to the headless monsters: If you want them to be a combat threat, you can just give them Injury Tolerance (No Eyes, No Head, No Neck) [17] and say that they have all normal senses if you want. Or you can give them Disadvantages that restrict their senses as much as you want, or give them something additional like Vibration Sense (Air) [10] defined as sensitive body hair, or both. Any way you slice it, the Injury Tolerances will make them more difficult to defeat in hand-to-hand combat (they can't be choked out, eye-gouged, dropped with one good shot to the jaw, etc), but not that much more difficult in general, especially if some of the PCs have guns.

ETA: I've got to quibble with the Hitman PC being an expert Brawler. Why? Fisticuffs are typically a pretty bad way to actually decisively kill people, which puts it a little out-of-bounds without further justification if killing people is your job. If anybody here is going to be a good Brawler, it's probably the knife-fighter, but even he's more likely to have Wrestling instead because of the synergy with knives.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

You... do understand that there are other gaming styles that are separate from, and far more popular than, rigorous Simulationism, right..?

Are you sure it's not the understanding of the OP, and of the OP' GM, that is limited?

[Nosforontu]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

ETA: I've got to quibble with the Hitman PC being an expert Brawler. Why? Fisticuffs are typically a pretty bad way to actually decisively kill people, which puts it a little out-of-bounds without further justification if killing people is your job.

I wouldn't say so especially since the Hitman probably served some time as simple hired muscle or legbreaker before moving up to hit man. The kind of guy who would probably have been called in to break a few legs before being called up to the major leagues and trusted with his first hit.

[DAT]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Any rules that says an "unnamed NPC" dies after taking 1 HP of damage, risks disregarding the weapon loadout choices made by the player characters. One character opts to lug around an insanely heavy two-handed weapon, that does a lot of damage, suffering the encumbrance during the entire session (as well as the monetary outlay for the weapon, and quite possibly much higher monetary cost per piece of ammunition), while another character decides he'll just take along a rusty tooth pick.

The first character is entitled to benefit from his choice.

I always run the Cannon Fodder/Mook rules as they always fail their HT roles, not that 1 point of damage takes them out.

So the 1 point of damage from the rusty tooth pick, may cause them to have an infected wound in a few days. But the two-handed sworded will on average cause a major wound that will drop them that second.
-Dan

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by DAT

I always run the Cannon Fodder/Mook rules as they always fail their HT roles, not that 1 point of damage takes them out.

So the 1 point of damage from the rusty tooth pick, may cause them to have an infected wound in a few days. But the two-handed sworded will on average cause a major wound that will drop them that second.
-Dan

Plus most heavy weapons are going to have other advantages; the Two-Handed Sword has better reach and won't snap if parried by... just about anything, as compared to a rusty toothpick. Replacing that with a small dagger... mooks are mooks and a lot of them are designed for C combat. So again in a lot of match-ups, the heavier weapons are just less effective than they realistically should be, but by no means ineffective.

Take the scenario presented for this thread; these headless pseudo-zombies are probably not armed (unless the experimentation also granted them [un]natural, built-in weapons. Even if these guys are 1 HP wonders, Mr. Two-Handed Sword is taking them out where they can't reach him, while Mr. Dagger is coming into Close attack range.

Otherwise, its either the GM's "fault" for not warning the players ahead of time that this was a cinematic game with cannon fodder NPCs to take out, or the player's fault for not listening.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Are you sure it's not the understanding of the OP, and of the OP' GM, that is limited?

Pretty sure, yes. The OP asked a Narrativist / Gameist question, and you scolded him for not being the Simulationist he never claimed to be, which is not helpful. I'm saying this as somebody with strongly Simulationist tendencies myself, but also a belief in Wheaton's Law.