Ok, can someone explain the "mook rule"
- Thread starter Gothmog
- Start date
Gez
First Post
True, very true. When a single character has his own theme, then he's not a mook. At best, mooks get a communal theme.
D&D had a long story of having mooks without having mooks. That's what kobolds and goblins were for. Orcs too, once you were past level 2. A bit too tough for level 1 or 2 to be considered mooks.
Still, mooks can hurt and even kill people, when they're numerous enough. That's why sometimes the heroes flee from the mook, usually running in corridors so that only a few mook at a time may shoot on them, and miss. IIRC, Leia was hurted once, at the shoulder, but I don't remember if it was by a mere stormtrooper or by something beefier, like a walker (heh, a walker's blaster hit at the shoulder, and she's not even badly hurted, who would deny Star Wars should works with hit points?).
D&D had a long story of having mooks without having mooks. That's what kobolds and goblins were for. Orcs too, once you were past level 2. A bit too tough for level 1 or 2 to be considered mooks.
Still, mooks can hurt and even kill people, when they're numerous enough. That's why sometimes the heroes flee from the mook, usually running in corridors so that only a few mook at a time may shoot on them, and miss. IIRC, Leia was hurted once, at the shoulder, but I don't remember if it was by a mere stormtrooper or by something beefier, like a walker (heh, a walker's blaster hit at the shoulder, and she's not even badly hurted, who would deny Star Wars should works with hit points?).
It was, of course, Saruman who killed Faramir, not the Witch-King. I ALWAYS get them mixed up.
Gez
First Post
Addendum: When mook are trying to subdue, rather than kill, they can be efficient. It's then called a "plot hook." The aim is to have the character be captured, so that the BBEG may make a speach to explain the story. Then the characters are rescued or find a way to escape, so as to defeat the villain. In Star Wars again, the stormtroopers hit Leia with the first try when he used a stun ray.
I don't think this is limited to knug fu flicks. It is any hollywood flick from "Commando" to "Lethal Weapon"
Its like the movie Robin Hood.
Are we excited to see robin fight it out in nauseating detail against hordes of guards? Or are we really excited for the fight against the sheriff.
My players and I bore of the fighting the little guys, and would ather relish the fight against the big bad or his henchmen.
Keeps the story moving, keeps things cinematic, makes the end fight all that more climactic.
I do agree that it befits descriptive or narrative storytelling though.
In modern games, for example, mook rules become more neccessary wtih common sense...
We were playing spycraft. A character, hiding in the shadows with a pistol, succesfully hid from a passing guard. as the guard passed, the player stated that he raised his pistol and shot the guard in the back of his head. The GM told him to roll damage, he rolled like a 6 for damage and the guard lived and fired upon him. Everyone was in an uproar about this, but we let it go. After five rounds of fighting - heck after five hours of fighting little guys, we finally broke in to the stronghold - and the villain was gone - gads were we frustrated. Had I GMed it it would have taken 1/4 of the time and been far more satisfying to the players - and they would have shone. That confidence would have carreid them through the more dangerous and difficult fight with the big bad.
If you relish the battlemap tactical side of things, you may not like the mook thing. We are completely narrative and descriptive - no minatures - no battlemaps. My players want to be the Heroes of the day and do the cool things. I let them do the cool things against the monit bads - just not against the big bads or their major henchmen. If they got a name, I agree, then it is gonna be a fight. Otherwise... If it speeds up my game and the players love it and it buiild us the important fights, then....
Not for everyone though, I understand.
Razuur
Its like the movie Robin Hood.
Are we excited to see robin fight it out in nauseating detail against hordes of guards? Or are we really excited for the fight against the sheriff.
My players and I bore of the fighting the little guys, and would ather relish the fight against the big bad or his henchmen.
Keeps the story moving, keeps things cinematic, makes the end fight all that more climactic.
I do agree that it befits descriptive or narrative storytelling though.
In modern games, for example, mook rules become more neccessary wtih common sense...
We were playing spycraft. A character, hiding in the shadows with a pistol, succesfully hid from a passing guard. as the guard passed, the player stated that he raised his pistol and shot the guard in the back of his head. The GM told him to roll damage, he rolled like a 6 for damage and the guard lived and fired upon him. Everyone was in an uproar about this, but we let it go. After five rounds of fighting - heck after five hours of fighting little guys, we finally broke in to the stronghold - and the villain was gone - gads were we frustrated. Had I GMed it it would have taken 1/4 of the time and been far more satisfying to the players - and they would have shone. That confidence would have carreid them through the more dangerous and difficult fight with the big bad.
If you relish the battlemap tactical side of things, you may not like the mook thing. We are completely narrative and descriptive - no minatures - no battlemaps. My players want to be the Heroes of the day and do the cool things. I let them do the cool things against the monit bads - just not against the big bads or their major henchmen. If they got a name, I agree, then it is gonna be a fight. Otherwise... If it speeds up my game and the players love it and it buiild us the important fights, then....
Not for everyone though, I understand.
Razuur
Last edited:
Similar Threads
