If you play a game with mook rules (weak underlings, easily despatched), how do you handle an encounter where they are the only antagonists? Just use the same rules, or is that going to make it too easy?

I don't see any reason to upgrade the mooks and I have no problem with "too easy". But as with all combat scenes the real question is "what's the fight about".

It may be that the mooks are easy but the challenge is making sure none of them get away (as in a jail break sort of scenario). Or it might be that the mooks are a diversion in which case it's the time it takes to clear up the mooks that is the challenge (i.e. not wheter you win but how long it takes you to win). Or you could be protecting one mook from other mooks. Or it might be a comedy scene, totally outclassed criminal try to rob the party but in that case you are not playing it for the challenge, you are playing it for laughs.  

It's all down to "what's the fight about".

Should there then be different rules for whatever the fight might be about, or should the rules differentiate between those reasons?

I would imagine most such encounters are usually (if we take the case of a modern/urban setting) henchmen running errands for their boss (who may or may not be running them as a diversion) or encountered as a buffer - maybe the pc's are wandering into 'criminal territory' and consequently run across a mook roadblock.

Not sure what you are geting out with this "different rules" angle. If the fight is a diversion, the limiting factor is how many turns it takes to take down the mooks. I don't see any reason why the mooks themselves need to be upgraded/downgraded.

If the mooks are really puny by comparison to the characters there is a case for abstracting things further, either the critters or the fight itself, and deal with them as a swarm or as a some sort of hazard or challenge. But I'd expect that to be consistent.

The first thing I always ask myself when doing prep for any fight is 'why is this fight going to be interesting to play through?'

A bunch of underpowered folks just attacking the heroes or vice-versa 9 times out of 10 is not actually interesting enough for me to be bothered to run. I would want a clearly defined objective for the villains, such as killing a hostage, delaying the heroes to prevent them finding the bomb or something along those lines. Alternately, terrain or tactical advantage can help, there is nothing like seeing a 15th level party run away from 3rd level Kobolds that are 'organised'.

Quote from: jadrax;423317The first thing I always ask myself when doing prep for any fight is 'why is this fight going to be interesting to play through?'

A bunch of underpowered folks just attacking the heroes or vice-versa 9 times out of 10 is not actually interesting enough for me to be bothered to run.

As a player and GM, I've seen plenty of unbalanced combats that were either satisfying or important because, at a very basic level, nothing illustrates that the PCs are a step above normal than having them deal with a room full of normal opponents that don't really pose a threat.  And on a more abstract level, kicking butt plays into one of the reasons why some people role-play.  Robin Laws' defines one type of players as Butt Kicker:

"The Butt-Kicker wants to let off steam with a little old-fashioned vicarious mayhem. He picks a simple, combat-ready character, whether or not that is the best route to power and success in the system. After a long day in the office or classroom, he wants his character to clobber foes and once more prove his superiority over all who would challenge him. He may care enough about the rules to make his PC an optimal engine of destruction, or may be indifferent to them, so long as he gets to hit things. He expects you to provide his character plenty of chances to engage in the aforementioned clobbering and superiority."

So while it may not be strictly "interesting" to fight through a room full of inferior opponents that don't really pose a threat to the PCs, it can be great cathartic fun.

Quote from: Soylent Green;423308It's all down to "what's the fight about".

Yeah. You could use a mook fight to demonstrate something about the situation, enemy, ally, player characters, etc.. For example, you could use a fight with cyborg gorillas in Feng Shui to signal that the ancient sorcerer, who had been using undead, had gained new allies or access to new resources...

Seanchai

Quote from: jadrax;423317The first thing I always ask myself when doing prep for any fight is 'why is this fight going to be interesting to play through?'

In that case perhaps combat shouldn't focus merely on reducing hit point totals (which potentially could save the GM a lot of work as tracking multiple sets of stats is a nightmare). Maybe combat should be about who accomplishes a set of conditions first, such as luirng a villain into a trap (as opposed to just punching his lights out), or said villain attempting to activate Doomsday Device.

If they are just fighting mooks who have no boss, I think it's guaranteed the players will win. As stated, you need to add in some extra objective, or the encounter is just a waste of time. I think the time limit option might be best. Maybe a pendulum blade is swinging, and the players need to save the girl before she's cut in half. Or the boss ran out the back door, and if the players don't defeat the mooks in a few rounds, he gets away.

Quote from: Soylent Green;423315Not sure what you are geting out with this "different rules" angle.

Yeah. I'm not quite getting that part either.

Quote from: Soylent Green;423315Not sure what you are geting out with this "different rules" angle. If the fight is a diversion, the limiting factor is how many turns it takes to take down the mooks. I don't see any reason why the mooks themselves need to be upgraded/downgraded.

If the mooks are really puny by comparison to the characters there is a case for abstracting things further, either the critters or the fight itself, and deal with them as a swarm or as a some sort of hazard or challenge. But I'd expect that to be consistent.

What i'm saying is that instead of determining combat by dishing out damage to hit point pools or some such, maybe a set of conditions that, if fulfilled, confer victory. I know in running combats there have been plenty of times where simply seeking to deplete the antagonist's hit points (or whatever, it doesn't matter) has become tedious. In such cases i've often had to decide that the antagonists were defeated before their HP were fully depleted.

So, as I said, the condition could be something like lure the enemy into a trap, or stall him from setting off the bomb till the cops arrive. Whatever.

Quote from: John Morrow;423331So while it may not be strictly "interesting" to fight through a room full of inferior opponents that don't really pose a threat to the PCs, it can be great cathartic fun.

While I concede such players probably exist, I am probably not the GM they should be choosing to run games for them.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;423404In such cases i've often had to decide that the antagonists were defeated before their HP were fully depleted.

TBH, unless they are undead or stupidly programmed robots, foes should be running from people when they have no hope of defeating them.

To your wider point, I would probably favour systems which have separate systems for mass combat or mooks (such as D&D4 or Feng Shui) unless the rules where pretty light-weight anyway (Savage Worlds).

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;423404What i'm saying is that instead of determining combat by dishing out damage to hit point pools or some such, maybe a set of conditions that, if fulfilled, confer victory. I know in running combats there have been plenty of times where simply seeking to deplete the antagonist's hit points (or whatever, it doesn't matter) has become tedious. In such cases i've often had to decide that the antagonists were defeated before their HP were fully depleted.

So, as I said, the condition could be something like lure the enemy into a trap, or stall him from setting off the bomb till the cops arrive. Whatever.

Ah OK. No. Can't say I have done anything like this. But then, when I use mooks (like say level 0/less than 1 HD characters in AD&D), they're either there as such, as nuisances, rather than real threats to the PCs, or they are basically fodder for the bad guys in the fight, which really are the threats in the particular tactical situation we're talking about.

So. No. I never changed the rules because some mook rule broke down on me or something needed to be "fixed", no.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;423305If you play a game with mook rules (weak underlings, easily despatched), how do you handle an encounter where they are the only antagonists? Just use the same rules, or is that going to make it too easy?

Even though mooks maybe paper tigers, they still can pose a significant threat to a group of PCs given good use of tactics and terrain.  I would not use separate rules for a fight consisting of only mooks- if fact, I would stick the combat rules of the given system and play it out.  

In 4e D&D, minions are paper tigers, but that title still has the word 'tiger' in it.  Minions hit hard and have to be hit to take damage.  I've nearly TPK'd parties with minion kobolds and goblins.

The problem of mooks really differs from system to system. In my home brew system, a well made player character is lucky to be able to kill 3 space marines, which are abundant in this setting. 10 space marines, armed and expecting combat, against 5 player characters is very dangerous, even if none of the mooks have names.

In D&D, mooks can be quit useless because it is so easy to get a character with armor class too high to be hit. It becomes rather pointless and irritating to roll attacks for say, 40 guys with a +3 to strike and 8 hit points against someone with 30 hit points and an AC of 23. Yes, I know, they could tackle him. But then you have to deal with grappling rules which make even less sense than regular combat.

"So let me get this strait -- I always survive the first 4 sword blows because they aren't actually technically stabbing me, however if my attacker simply grabbed me with an empty hand, they can throw me on the ground? Awesome."