Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[Thomas Shey]

I agree that "verisimilitude" is a far more appropriate and achievable goal than "realism". I question how much "realism" is even desirable to strive for in an RPG. No matter how hardcore the gamer, do they really want their guy to have a big chance of dying to infection after every fight? I'm guessing not.

Depending on what you mean by "big" and how much you actually consider that "realism" (I'm of the opinion that even real world combats automatically ending in mortality is not, in fact, realistic, but that's a long and complicated discussion that has no place in this thread) I could direct you to RuneQuest players.

 

[Pedantic]

Yeah, another example within the fantasy sphere. Being overly casually about 13th Age mooks does not seem to be what one would consider a good idea. You can mow through a lot of them, but you ignore them at your peril.

Fantasy Craft is another good example of this, where enemies come in "Standard" and "Special." They are built identically using FC's fairly involved NPC design tools, and differ only in how HP is calculated, and how many individuals are deployed. Standard enemies (barring some traits that affect XP build totals when designing them) always come in "mobs" of the same size as the PC's party (including pets, allies and so on, 1/turn the PC's party can bring to bear) and don't have HP totals. Instead they make a saving throw vs. 10+1/2 total accumulated damage each time they're hit to stay alive and go down immediately to crits and specific standard killing PC abilities that come on line at higher levels.

Anyway, that's all to say that mooks take somewhere between 2-0.5 PC actions to dispose of depending on the level range, but are as damaging as an equivalent special foe.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Depending on what you mean by "big" and how much you actually consider that "realism" (I'm of the opinion that even real world combats automatically ending in mortality is not, in fact, realistic, but that's a long and complicated discussion that has no place in this thread) I could direct you to RuneQuest players.

Depends, how rusty was the sword? Does disease even make sense in terms of a biological thing in the fantasy world? How does an elf's immune system work?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Fantasy Craft is another good example of this, where enemies come in "Standard" and "Special." They are built identically using FC's fairly involved NPC design tools, and differ only in how HP is calculated, and how many individuals are deployed. Standard enemies (barring some traits that affect XP build totals when designing them) always come in "mobs" of the same size as the PC's party (including pets, allies and so on, 1/turn the PC's party can bring to bear) and don't have HP totals. Instead they make a saving throw vs. 10+1/2 total accumulated damage each time they're hit to stay alive and go down immediately to crits and specific standard killing PC abilities that come on line at higher levels.

Anyway, that's all to say that mooks take somewhere between 2-0.5 PC actions to dispose of depending on the level range, but are as damaging as an equivalent special foe.

Right, I still like the 4e version that just have one hit point, but never take damage on a miss. The prevalent use of 'auto damage' did tend to make them less interesting at higher level though. I always thought a tier based kill threshold was a good fix instead of 1 damage across the board.

Some people also used the swarm rules to effectively create groups of pooled HP mooks. A few monsters include other specific variations.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Depends, how rusty was the sword? Does disease even make sense in terms of a biological thing in the fantasy world? How does an elf's immune system work?

As I said, a subject that I think goes too far afield to be a useful side discussion here. I have pronounced opinions that even modern-day period games where someone is trying to be gritty often overstate the automatic lethality of combat, but it requires more unpacking than I feel like doing in this thread.

 

[Lanefan]

This was your response to me when I made a post that broke out the three essential parts (in one of multiple ways to look at games):

* GM's say

* Player's say

* System's say

So the first two are participants at the table that are executing the game. The analog to this is the owner/driver of the Porsche GT3.

Sorry, but in my eyes the proposed structure has already got a hole in it, in that IMO what you're calling "GM's say" and "System's say" very much overlap. Why? Because a GM can, if desired, redesign or kitbash the system into what s/he wants to run.

(the question of whether those redesigns or kitbashes result in an objectively better, worse, or similar game experience isn't relevant here; what matters is that the GM can do it at all)

Same goes for your music; have you dubbed in a line that you thought up or re-recorded something with another layer of percussion or strings or something, changing the composition?

If I had the a) skill and b) equipment to record what's in my head I'd be doing this all the time!

So that is what I'm asking. When something it a tightly integrated, holistic design with meticulous marriage of each constituent part...and the experience of the thing is sensitive to fundamental changes...what is your litmus test for the change?

First thing: you seem to be assuming a level of design tightness and resistance to modification that - while good for cars and many other things - is almost antithetical to the make-it-your-own-game philosophy that's been deeply ingrained since day one; a philosophy that really does set RPGs apart from almost any other type of game and, one could argue, almost any other type of product design. Take away that philosophy and you take away much of what makes the hobby what it is.

And related, do the engineers of the Porsche 911 GT3 have no say (no "system's say")? What about the artist and the painting? What about the band and its song? What about grandma and her recipe? When does grandma and her recipe have its "say?" Does it (the Porsche, the painting, the song, the recipe) never have a "say" in the matter and so you deem its always just the owner/driver/replicator's decision to opt-in or opt-out of her design/system? Or is that "say" only proportional to expertise in the discipline (you're going to make changes to the song if you're an expert musician, changes to the painting if you're an expert painter, changes to grandma's recipe if you're a capable cook, etc)? What are the boundaries of this? Does this litmus test hold for all holistic, meticulously balanced, sensitive to fundamental changes, ecosystems (complex network of interconnected systems)?

What are the limits to these things (the decision to make changes vs deference to the design platform and its results)?

I'm not sure I'd ever get to the point of applying that litmus test; such a system would 99% likely have failed at an earlier hurdle, that being whether I wanted anything to do with it. An RPG system that resistant to kitbashing or change is laying down some IMO unnecessarily-clear and stark borders, in that I-the-consumer am either going to like it - all of it - as it is or I'm not. There's no middle ground, no real room for "I like most of this but it needs a few changes", which if nothing else serves to limit both the market and potential uptake for said system.

And, with such a system, if I like it that means I like all of it thus why would I change it, and if I don't like it - or parts of it - why would I bother with it given its stiff resistance to modifications?

(edit - typos)

 

[Lanefan]

I should note that this is at least a narrow view of mooks in games. As an example, I know of a number of superhero games where the equivelant will fold up quick if you attack them, but where they're quite capable of causing you a lot of trouble if you ignore them (its very common for the difference between mooks/henchmen/etc and full opponents to be far less pronounced on the offensive end than the defensive end. This goes all the way back to Bushido, which had three potential tiers of opponents, ones that took the full normal damage for type, ones that had a flat 10 hit points, and ones that had 1. While it was easy to take down the latter, they didn't necessarily hit any less hard than the first; they'd probably be less dangerous because they didn't last long, but you could not be blase about them.

So there can be some considerable gap between mooks-as-speedbumps and mooks-as-hazard. They just aren't full-blown opponents.

I guess we're defining mooks a bit differently. To me, mooks are just speedbumps. Once they become mooks-as-hazard they're not mooks any more but actual opponents, in my view.

Take a room containing:

1 Frost Giant
2 Winter Wolves
5 ordinary wolves
5 Goblins.

I think we all agree the Goblins are mooks and the Giant is a real foe. The Winter Wolves probably count as real foes as well - but the ordinary wolves? In my view they're also actual foes, in that if they pack-swarm someone that person could be in a world o' trouble even if each wolf wouldn't stand a chance if fought individually.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I guess we're defining mooks a bit differently. To me, mooks are just speedbumps. Once they become mooks-as-hazard they're not mooks any more but actual opponents, in my view.

Take a room containing:

1 Frost Giant
2 Winter Wolves
5 ordinary wolves
5 Goblins.

I think we all agree the Goblins are mooks and the Giant is a real foe. The Winter Wolves probably count as real foes as well - but the ordinary wolves? In my view they're also actual foes, in that if they pack-swarm someone that person could be in a world o' trouble even if each wolf wouldn't stand a chance if fought individually.

The thing you're not perhaps getting about my response is that a lot of the things some games use as mooks are not nearly as separate in offensive power as a frost giant and the goblins. Its not just a case of numbers (as in how many they are) but in skill and weapon potency. They're still mooks though, because they go down very easily (often or usually with a single hit).

 

[Lanefan]

The thing you're not perhaps getting about my response is that a lot of the things some games use as mooks are not nearly as separate in offensive power as a frost giant and the goblins. Its not just a case of numbers (as in how many they are) but in skill and weapon potency. They're still mooks though, because they go down very easily (often or usually with a single hit).

You're thinking of things like 4e's minions, I guess. Not a design I favour at all, but I see what you're getting at.

 

[Manbearcat]

Sorry, but in my eyes the proposed structure has already got a hole in it, in that IMO what you're calling "GM's say" and "System's say" very much overlap. Why? Because a GM can, if desired, redesign or kitbash the system into what s/he wants to run.

What you're seeing above here is not "my proposed structure having a hole in it." What you're registering is your deeply-internalized belief of the assertion you make directly below being challenged by a proposition (more on that below):

First thing: you seem to be assuming a level of design tightness and resistance to modification that - while good for cars and many other things - is almost antithetical to the make-it-your-own-game philosophy that's been deeply ingrained since day one; a philosophy that really does set RPGs apart from almost any other type of game and, one could argue, almost any other type of product design. Take away that philosophy and you take away much of what makes the hobby what it is.

On the first bold word, I'm not "assuming." I'm "proposing." My proposition is "what if there is design tightness and resistance to (foundational - you omitted this) modification in a TTRPG system (just as there is in biological systems, plenty of engineered systems and in plenty of art).” You've inverted what is happening here. You are assuming that there is no such thing as a level of design tightness and resistance to modification. You then index this assumption (that, given our interactions over the years, is clearly the cornerstone of your ideas around TTRPGs) when you relate your ideas on "the essential philosophy/culture of TTRPGs (or something like it)" directly thereafter (the second bolded part after "assuming").

Your position (which I already knew) is "there is no such thing as system's say (or designer's say) because GM."

I already knew that about you. I'm curious why that is.

If I had the a) skill and b) equipment to record what's in my head I'd be doing this all the time!

So this is actually useful to our conversation. This is what I was trying to tease out.

So, beyond the TTRPG essentialism/"beating heart of TTRPGing" you're espousing above (and have espoused many times before), you're actually talking about how the sausage is made here. So, presumably, the driver's experience, music consumption, and art consumption might/would all change, at the macro-cultural level (just as you've specified your idea of a macro-cultural essentialism of TTRPGs), if humans felt (I use the term "felt" here very deliberately) that they had the "the chops" & means (skills, tools, kit). All cars, music, and art would change status from "completed works" to something like "pending DIY projects?" Do you think that might occur? If you don't think that might occur, maybe break out why TTRPGs are particularly unique here in the way that cars & driving experience and music and art consumption are not (indexing the owner/primary participant relationship with them if you would...because that most closely maps to something like your personal usage of "GM").

Can you engage with those questions/propositions above?

* In case its not clear why I used "felt" above, I would hope its abundantly clear that the human expert class is overrun with a hubris that renders their perception of their own expertise significantly more a burden than a boon (even in the discipline that they're supposed to be an expert in). Ironically (given that you believe GMs DIYing is the backbone, or near enough, of TTRPGing), I would say GMs in the TTRPG community are like the paragon of this phenomenon.