Quote from: Omega;812576Exactly.

Or at least should be.

Seen a similar argument leveled once at wargamers and and how they treat their troops.

Can't speak for everyone in the thread but I wasn't leveling an argument anyone. The only think I found hard to wrap my head around is the idea how some don't feel any differently on an emotional level about violence depicted against women as against men particularly in visual mediums like film. That does seem weird to me because I haven't ran into anywhere else. And even in that care I didn't make any moral judgement. And I didn't mean too.

My OP is pretty straight forward. I was wondering how many used females in the "mook" role.

Quote from: Nexus;812577My OP is pretty straight forward. I was wondering how many used females in the "mook" role.

My mooks, or orcs, or whatevers, are vaguely defined until the players decide to investigate.  So far they've encountered female bugbears and hobgoblins mixed in the warbands.

Quote from: Snowman0147;812507What I could had jump into this lame conversation and gotten myself a ninjabread cookie?  Damn!  Though I do agree with One Horse Town in that this conversation is useless because who in the hell would even bother to put a characteristic of any type into a goon that won't survive three seconds against a player character?  The goon be dead long before you even describe the gender of that goon.

Well, it doesn't matter for the individual mook, but I'd say it is telling about the nature of the force these mooks belong to.

Some examples:

- If all females and males of a humanoid tribe fight, you are far less likely to run into civilians. If they are defeated, they are much less likely to return in a few years, as rebuilding numbers is takes longer with female casualties.

- A villain employs only male warriors, another is equal opportunity and only cares for skill and a third uses an almost entirely male force, but his bodyguards are all female, chosen for looks more than skill. These three villains propably have wildly diffent worldviews and the makeup of their forces tells you something about the way they will interact with NPCs and how they are likely to react to female PC warriors.

- Crazy religious cults. Might have monogendered forces, either because they see the life of one gender as more valuable or they only take members from one gender. They might seperate different genders into differen units of different training. They might throw their worshippers en masse into combat as an untrained frenzied mob or most worshippers are civilians with only a few well trained and equipped templars doing combat duty. This all depends on the cults believes and I'd expect consistency here.

- If a humanoid race is asexual, you might not run into civilians or infants at all. They can possibliy regain numbers at an astonishing rate or not at all. The question of "where do they come from" might be central part of fighting them.

I'd say that in all the above cases the gender makeup of mooks massively changes how adventures and campaigns opposing them would play out.

Bottom line: I agree that from a combat standpoint and concerning the individual mook, mook gender is utterly irellevant. But I think from a worldbuilding perspective, it can be of great importance.

Interesting if taken to its nearest Earth-related logical conclusion. For example, Insectoids predominantly neuter female warriors. High egg laying species may see both sexes as expendable to save young (squids, amphibians, etc). Female dominant aggression species, like hyena. Short gestation period, large litters, high population rates.

There is a lot you can do with it, if one so cares.

Quote from: Snowman0147;812507who in the hell would even bother to put a characteristic of any type into a goon that won't survive three seconds against a player character?  The goon be dead long before you even describe the gender of that goon.

That's why I hate the concept of mooks, goons, etc... even if we're not talking about mechanical ones.  If you narratively assign them the tag of "goon" you may as well give them one HP and make it a mechanical difference.

A mook or goon is there to be fought.  They can't be bargained with, they can't be reasoned with, they can only be defeated, or scared off, they are a literary device, a trope, a cliche.  That's why they don't need names, genders or even descriptions really, they may as well be crash test dummies wearing signs.

You give the thug on the corner a name, a gender, a description (even one you make up on the fly) you give the players information they can use, give them someone they can talk to - you know, the whole roleplaying thing - you tie them to the setting more.  Hell, what started off as a thug encounter could end up being one of your more interesting and long-term NPCs.

Never miss a chance for your players to become tied to something in the campaign, even if it's just a funny memory of the conversation they had with that Thug behind the Stuck Pig tavern.  You'll never predict what they find relevant, what they want to delve deeper into, so never cut off that possibility by introducing Mook48327.

I find mooks (in the sense of one hit and done NPCs) helpful for games that want a bit of a Robin Hood flair (and similar genres) where you have one or two PCs able to fend off dozens of guys (it is also really helpful for my martial arts campaigns). Some of the games I like to run would be pretty much impossible without this as an option. That doesn't mean they can't be reasoned with or have no personality. Obviously I'm not going to come up with 30 or 40 personalities before hand, but I can use their allegiance to their group as a starting point to know what they would be receptive to, and I can ad lib individual characters as needed.

That said, the thing about mooks is they only really work for games where you are going for adventure movie logic and physics. They do feel out of place if you game is more gritty or just more real worldy. I think this is where systems like D&D sometimes go wrong when introducing things like minion mechanics. In a campaign meant to feel like an Errol Flynn movie they would feel right, but a lot of D&D campaigns don't strive for that feel and if every guard drops with one blow, it can reduce the realism. So when you a mook mechanic in a broad game like D&D I think it is always best to present it as an option with advice explaining when it might be useful.

Quote from: Gold Roger;812691Well, it doesn't matter for the individual mook, but I'd say it is telling about the nature of the force these mooks belong to.

Some examples:

- If all females and males of a humanoid tribe fight, you are far less likely to run into civilians. If they are defeated, they are much less likely to return in a few years, as rebuilding numbers is takes longer with female casualties.

- A villain employs only male warriors, another is equal opportunity and only cares for skill and a third uses an almost entirely male force, but his bodyguards are all female, chosen for looks more than skill. These three villains propably have wildly diffent worldviews and the makeup of their forces tells you something about the way they will interact with NPCs and how they are likely to react to female PC warriors.

- Crazy religious cults. Might have monogendered forces, either because they see the life of one gender as more valuable or they only take members from one gender. They might seperate different genders into differen units of different training. They might throw their worshippers en masse into combat as an untrained frenzied mob or most worshippers are civilians with only a few well trained and equipped templars doing combat duty. This all depends on the cults believes and I'd expect consistency here.

- If a humanoid race is asexual, you might not run into civilians or infants at all. They can possibliy regain numbers at an astonishing rate or not at all. The question of "where do they come from" might be central part of fighting them.

I'd say that in all the above cases the gender makeup of mooks massively changes how adventures and campaigns opposing them would play out.

Bottom line: I agree that from a combat standpoint and concerning the individual mook, mook gender is utterly irellevant. But I think from a worldbuilding perspective, it can be of great importance.

I agree. I try to at least flesh some details about the group as a whole, a little color and background along with the reason they're there. "Mook" is a mechanical short hand for convenience it doesn't make them less of a character, at least potentially, that the players can interact with if they chose.

Yeah, I wouldn't recommend fixating on the concept of goon or mook as anything more than, as Bedrock Brendan said, a shorthand convenience. Sure they could be stated out in full beforehand. But, like the principle of good stagecraft dependent upon audience attention, it is fine if they are just blurry, abstracted decor, not high detail and fully representational.

Basically you can reimagine this OP to "do you use pastels and curlycues" when "sketching combat backdrops." It's merely a set of tools for a project to set atmosphere. And I'm not normally adverse to having such tools in my toolbox. It's just a question of aesthetic boundaries.

Quote from: Gold Roger;812691Bottom line: I agree that from a combat standpoint and concerning the individual mook, mook gender is utterly irellevant. But I think from a worldbuilding perspective, it can be of great importance.

THAT was a really great post.

Gold Roger, please post more often!

Quote from: CRKrueger;812700Never miss a chance for your players to become tied to something in the campaign, even if it's just a funny memory of the conversation they had with that Thug behind the Stuck Pig tavern.  You'll never predict what they find relevant, what they want to delve deeper into, so never cut off that possibility by introducing Mook48327.

I agree.

I always remember that one goblin who keeps making his morale save, keeps being missed by the fighters and suddenly by the luck of the dice becomes "somebody" out of the crowd of goon goblins just meant to be chopped up.

Also, if you use figs, and if you WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get), then who knows how the players may react to a certain "mook" fig.

I personally love banter in combat. My monsters and foes get chatty before dealing death or dying. Really fun, but sudden roleplay moments can happen even in the most "insignificant" social or combat encounters.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;812704I find mooks (in the sense of one hit and done NPCs) helpful for games that want a bit of a Robin Hood flair (and similar genres) where you have one or two PCs able to fend off dozens of guys (it is also really helpful for my martial arts campaigns).

I also agree.

Its really fun when everybody is kung fu fighting. For me, its more about mooks in a Supers campaign when Major Disaster twirls his mustache and sends for a dozen thugs against the Azure Sorceress who dispatches them with her thunderous powers.

It's a genre thing, but remember That One Goblin? Way back when we played Champions, our 5 heroes could not bring down one damn 50 point Viper agent who would not go down. We had whacked everyone else, I think they had Ogre + 6 Viper goons to start with. The GM turned that one guy into a Viper Boss and he became a reoccurring villain (and the GM gifted him with 1D6 Luck after our battle).

In the James Bond film formula, there is always a bad girl who gets her ass kicked by Bond (after he sleeps with her, of course). It has to be fatal, so he can sleep with the good girl at the end and keep a clear conscience. It just wouldn't be British to sleep with two girls in the same film and not kill one of them.

This article came up in the other thread.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/criticalintel/12893-It-Is-Realistic-For-Women-to-Fight-in-Dragon-Age.3

But I don't think anyone is saying women never ever fought historically in either thread but that it wasn't anywhere near a 50/50 division and that the idea can make some people uncomfortable regardless of realism or not.

Quote from: Nexus;812888This article came up in the other thread.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/criticalintel/12893-It-Is-Realistic-For-Women-to-Fight-in-Dragon-Age.3

But I don't think anyone is saying women never ever fought historically in either thread but that it wasn't anywhere near a 50/50 division and that the idea can make some people uncomfortable regardless of realism or not.

Even in societies where women were warriors (like the Scythians - not their Sauromatae cousins, though), I doubt they'd have been more than 40% of the people under arms.

Probably totally off topic. But the type and level of a civilization can also impact wether the women fight or not and how common that is. Women are the keystone of a civilization. If you are small then you cannot really afford to have them on the frontline unless its militia. And I believe it was Gygax in one of his books that pointed out that there are examples enough of women training in the militia.

But a larger civilization that can absorb losses and not become extinct will potentially have more options for women to advance. Depending on many many factors.

And while they may not be fighting. They may be pulling the strings causing the fighting.

Also you will see more women in "goon" roles where there is more overpopulation, slums and the like.

But in the end gender doesnt matter. It is that pointy piece of metal they want to ram into your guts that matters and wether or not you can put them down before they do.

Quote from: Omega;812929Probably totally off topic. But the type and level of a civilization can also impact wether the women fight or not and how common that is. Women are the keystone of a civilization. If you are small then you cannot really afford to have them on the frontline unless its militia. And I believe it was Gygax in one of his books that pointed out that there are examples enough of women training in the militia.

But a larger civilization that can absorb losses and not become extinct will potentially have more options for women to advance. Depending on many many factors.

And while they may not be fighting. They may be pulling the strings causing the fighting.

Also you will see more women in "goon" roles where there is more overpopulation, slums and the like.

But in the end gender doesnt matter. It is that pointy piece of metal they want to ram into your guts that matters and wether or not you can put them down before they do.

Antiquity says otherwise. The Scythians I mentioned were nomadic horsemen, with relatively low population densities and numbers. By contrast the settled and more populous Greeks and Romans sequestered their women away, they didn't so any fighting at all.

Quote from: Kiero;812942Antiquity says otherwise. The Scythians I mentioned were nomadic horsemen, with relatively low population densities and numbers. By contrast the settled and more populous Greeks and Romans sequestered their women away, they didn't so any fighting at all.

That is why I said potentially. Try reading the post rather than soapboxing your pet agenda.