I've only seen one RPG that gives guidance on who the monster should/would attack and I don't remember which (possibly 4E?). It seems like something that should be common. I'm tired of rolling a dice to select between two PCs and I'm going to try something new:

• Smart monsters will go after spellusers
• Undead/Demons will go after Clerics (but possibly after opposite alignment)
• Minions will attack who they are told to attack.
• Most other monsters will attack whomever attacked them last (that they are aware of at least).

The last one, when the players figure out the pattern, may cause some folks to delay their attack to go last to keep another from getting hit, hopefully making them think tactical about the battle.

I'm curious how others handle this sort of thing.

Well as the forever-GM, I'm always roleplaying my monsters even in combat. If they're animal intelligence, depends. I might just run away (shh! then I'll sneak back to see what's going on and maybe kill a PC). If they're intelligent, I respond organically based on what their reaction might be.

When it comes to combat I generally have a hard set rule about magic. In *most* of my D&D games magic is respected and feared. It's not like how it's portrayed in most D&D games where everyone us using Unseen Hand to jerk off, and Cantrips are used to light all the candles and torches in a hall. I'm not saying you *can't* do that, I'm saying most casters keep a low-profile because I do generally have people treat casters with suspicion.

Monsters are the same. Typically rage or fear.

Clerics are different as I take them more favorable (depending on their god) in polite society. But of course a Cleric riled up is/should be something worthy of fear, so fight/flight or possible parley? Depends.

Most monsters are just that - eat the first thing that they can get within reach until the part proves to be an issue.

Sometimes I have it attack the nearest, or if equidistant, the one with the health points.  I'm playing Star Frontiers now, and it's always telling me to attack a random character.  Well, I -DO- assign numbers and roll a die, since the book says, "random".

Quote from: Ruprecht on October 28, 2024, 05:49:05 PMI've only seen one RPG that gives guidance on who the monster should/would attack and I don't remember which (possibly 4E?). It seems like something that should be common. I'm tired of rolling a dice to select between two PCs and I'm going to try something new:

• Smart monsters will go after spellusers
• Undead/Demons will go after Clerics (but possibly after opposite alignment)
• Minions will attack who they are told to attack.
• Most other monsters will attack whomever attacked them last (that they are aware of at least).

The last one, when the players figure out the pattern, may cause some folks to delay their attack to go last to keep another from getting hit, hopefully making them think tactical about the battle.

I'm curious how others handle this sort of thing.

Heh. I once had giant beetles focus "fire" on the tank. Took him down in one turn while the party was scrambling to do something. I learned two things. Never underestimate a swarm, and to be very careful with tactics as the guy setting up the encounter.
From then on, I had vague ideas about who the enemies will attack based on intelligence, experience, and tendencies. From there, I roll dice to break "ties" if there are multiple valid choices of target. I also try to split fire from the enemies whenever possible into batches.
So like, the orcs may have their brutes engage the player "tanks", but the goblin archers will try to shoot at spellcasters. From there, I will dice randomly for who specifically is each enemys target.
And maybe add some spice, like the Orcs hate Dwarves and will target them first, and/or the goblins will choose clerics over wizards if they can tell them apart. Stuff like that.
If circumstances like bottlenecks or positioning means that one target gets ganged up on, I'm not going to prevent it. Just make it less likely so the players can have a chance to mitigate the situation.

For me it's a balancing act between putting enough stress on the players to create excitement and trying to make it feel authentic the the in game circumstances.  After that, I'm just kind of winging it.  I have a handful of basic guidelines I use

Who is the easiest for the monster to hit?
From the monster's perspective, what is the most attractive target?
What target frightens the monster the most?
How smart are the monsters?
How much have the PCs reveled as far as weaknesses and strengths to the monsters?

I'm only running my own game at this point, and the monsters always have information about this in their description.  Some want to grab some meat and get away with it.  Some will by pass downed enemies in favor of dangerous ones.  Some will finish the ones on the ground.  It depends largely on the behavior of whatever inspired me to make them in the first place.

I go with monster motivations and morale first, their own tactics second, any kind of retaliation or other assessment of capabilities third, and then random after that.  Which for me all comes under the heading of role playing the decision making of the monsters.

Of course, those categories can cross. An intelligent group of enemies may very well go directly after the most dangerous PC(s) first, from their perspective.  Some will be more interested in avoiding or closing to melee, targeting accordingly. 

My system sometimes makes it dangerous to leave an opponent not engaged.  So most thinking opponents take that into account.  If 6 monsters are charging 2 heavily armored PCs, then 2-4 of them (depending on their equipment and tactics) will try to get past to the characters behind.  Maximizing engagement is a primary tactic for most.  This has the happy effect of making certain vicious monsters, like zombies, that much more frightening, because they do gang up on whatever is closer, without regards to their own welfare. 

Morale is so important. To make every fight not a fight to the bitter end. To make fights take less time and not exhaust the excitement. And to differentiate enemies that are fanatical enough to fight to the death (mindless undead, robots, mind controlled thralls) and need extra consideration.
I use morale even in games that don't have a morale rule, as it's pretty easy to just assign a number to a die roll based on circumstances.
I could just decide, but after playing Amber diceless, I gained a real appreciation of just how much mental load that using a randomizer takes off the GM.

I'll echo what others have said on this, in that I try and have it be dictated by the monster's motivation. It's relatively rare in my games for an NPC's primary motivation be just killing the PCs. Intelligent NPCs are usually going to be primarily concerned with their own survival and then have some secondary goal that put them into conflict with the PCs in the first place.  That has the amusing side effect my PCs are more often than not the ones who escalate to deadly force. Animal-intelligence monsters are usually either after meat or trying to drive the PCs off of their territory. It's really only mindless creatures like undead that are likely to be out to kill the PCs for no reason other than to do it.

That said, it's still an issue I find myself grappling with every session. I do think it's a good policy to try and have some NPC behaviors laid out in advance of the game. I like that sort of thing as a means of policing my own impartiality as a DM, since I find that picking monster attacks is one of the places I'm most tempted to tip the scales for or against the players. It's so easy to know when the next attack is going to kill a PC and there's always that temptation to have it conveniently target someone else.

Runehammer/Hankerin Furnale did a video a while back on the concept of writing primitive "AI" for your monsters, basically a series of "if->then" statements to dictate their behavior in combat. Interesting concept, though I've never tried to implement it.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 28, 2024, 11:38:53 PMMorale is so important. To make every fight not a fight to the bitter end. To make fights take less time and not exhaust the excitement. And to differentiate enemies that are fanatical enough to fight to the death (mindless undead, robots, mind controlled thralls) and need extra consideration.
I use morale even in games that don't have a morale rule, as it's pretty easy to just assign a number to a die roll based on circumstances.

I would second (and third and fourth if I can) this statement. Most creatures do not wish to die, and will not stay in a fight they aren't very confident of winning. Creatures that are genuinely heedless of their own safety should be extraordinarily dangerous. One of my bigger frustrations with D&D (and with most RPGs to be fair) is the lack of decent rules for running away. It's too often the case that trying to run away from a fight ends up being more suicidal than standing your ground.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 28, 2024, 11:38:53 PMMorale is so important. To make every fight not a fight to the bitter end. To make fights take less time and not exhaust the excitement. And to differentiate enemies that are fanatical enough to fight to the death (mindless undead, robots, mind controlled thralls) and need extra consideration.
I use morale even in games that don't have a morale rule, as it's pretty easy to just assign a number to a die roll based on circumstances.
I could just decide, but after playing Amber diceless, I gained a real appreciation of just how much mental load that using a randomizer takes off the GM.

I agree that Morale is important. I typically decide on the fly instead of actually rolling.

This is where I really wish RPGs could represent combat more dynamically, particularly in regards to movement and position.

I'll give an example: I had a situation in my Dolmenwood campaign where an investigation led my PCs to attacking a pair of magicians they had cornered in an inn bedroom. (Again, it's funny to me how often my PCs are the aggressors). The senior magician was standing in the doorway, originally trying to drive the PCs away, and when that failed, trying to hold them off so that his apprentice could escape out the window. So his goal should be to tie down multiple PCs at once and waste their time, while their goal should be to drive him backwards into the room where they can surround him and cut off his compatriot. Neither party actually needs to kill the other to achieve the immediate aim. In fact, they'd both be better off if they took him alive. But running basic rules as written, all they can do is stand in the doorway and exchange damage until one side gets what they want.

More complicated goals to be achieved in combat could dictate attack priority in tons of ways. Even just sticking to being able to push your opponents around the battlefield opens up possibilities. The bandits want to push you into their pit trap, the manticore drives the PCs off of the downed comrade they're defending. The PCs try to corner the Mad Marquis so they can capture him. The wizard places his lightning bolt to make an enemy formation scatter. Etc. etc.

I've homebrewed rules into my games to make this kind of thing more possible, but sadly most players are so conditioned to only think about how to most efficiently kill NPCs that they just ignore them. In the actual event I was talking about above, the PCs overran the magician and wound up killing both him and his apprentice, cutting off an angle of their investigation and putting themselves under suspicion.

Quote from: Ruprecht on October 28, 2024, 05:49:05 PMI've only seen one RPG that gives guidance on who the monster should/would attack and I don't remember which (possibly 4E?). It seems like something that should be common. I'm tired of rolling a dice to select between two PCs and I'm going to try something new:

• Smart monsters will go after spellusers
• Undead/Demons will go after Clerics (but possibly after opposite alignment)
• Minions will attack who they are told to attack.
• Most other monsters will attack whomever attacked them last (that they are aware of at least).

The last one, when the players figure out the pattern, may cause some folks to delay their attack to go last to keep another from getting hit, hopefully making them think tactical about the battle.

I'm curious how others handle this sort of thing.

Smart monsters will go after the greatest threat.

Very smart monsters will command lesser monsters in a tactical way to be most effective in accomplishing whatever goals they have for combat.

Undead are separate from demons in my games since most demons will act intelligently while low level undead act out of mindless hatred of the living. High level undead still have the hatred of the living, but act more intelligently in combat (typically using low level undead as troops).

Even monsters of average intelligence may use tactics that they are taught by their superiors. That is why intelligent monsters are so dangerous.

Animal intelligence monsters can still be trained, like k9 unit dogs are today. However that will indicate a guiding intelligence somewhere.

Mindless undead like skeletons or zombies can be programmed to follow simple instructions and would be great for repetitive tasks.

A lot depends on the scenario.

Quote from: ForgottenF on October 29, 2024, 07:55:05 AMOne of my bigger frustrations with D&D (and with most RPGs to be fair) is the lack of decent rules for running away. It's too often the case that trying to run away from a fight ends up being more suicidal than standing your ground.

Agree. I think part of the problem is that players (well, the players I've played with) tend to be bloodthirsty and kill all the opponents, even the ones who surrender. It's kinda hard to justify an enemy showing discretion to a party that gets a reputation for giving no quarter.
My usual approach is to let the players know that retreat is an option. In hindsight I'd also make clear that enemies will probably give quarter if only to take prisoners for ransom and to keep things from escalating too far and risking retaliation from The King or Max-Tac or whoever the big heavies are.

And some won't, and that's part of the risk of running around bonking people for xp and loot.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 29, 2024, 06:52:48 PMAgree. I think part of the problem is that players (well, the players I've played with) tend to be bloodthirsty and kill all the opponents, even the ones who surrender. It's kinda hard to justify an enemy showing discretion to a party that gets a reputation for giving no quarter.

It's one of a few phenomena I lump together under the term "gamer-brain". Gamers mercilessly slaughter all enemies because it's more efficient and they're not actually empathizing with the in-game situation. They're not going to allow even a small chance that a spared opponent will come back and inconvenience them later, and hey, killing people is what you do in a game right?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 29, 2024, 06:52:48 PMMy usual approach is to let the players know that retreat is an option. In hindsight I'd also make clear that enemies will probably give quarter if only to take prisoners for ransom and to keep things from escalating too far and risking retaliation from The King or Max-Tac or whoever the big heavies are.

All that stuff is good, and I think context and genre expectation play a role, too. People seem to be less casually homicidal in Cyberpunk or Call of Cthulhu than they are in D&D.

But I do think better rules would go a long way. I've long since eliminated the attack of opportunity for retreating from any game in which it appears. I only award an AoO when an opponent tries to run past you. I also think the Savage Worlds running die mechanic is a step in the right direction. I'm going to try incorporating it into my next campaign, with penalties or bonuses for how well armed you are, so if you throw away your weapons and run for your life, you'll get a significant bonus to your chances of escaping. Along with making it a bit harder to shoot fleeing enemies, I hope that will make retreat more viable.

One thing I do to get new players out of "gamer brain" is to set up an adventure where there is a reward for bringing opponents back alive. Then I make it possible but not easy. Which usually translates to some of the reward options getting killed, some getting captured, and some getting away--making a nice follow up adventure.

By the time all that plays out, the players have actively been trying to see how the rules work to take someone down without killing them, but they know it is situational and not always the best option. I don't really mind if they are killing opponents or capturing them or running them off, but I do want the players to think 3 seconds before deciding which way to go in any particular situation.