I find having a process or criteria to determine an attack target takes more mental bandwidth from me than just going with my gut 90% of the time. For the other 10% the tried and true "1-3 it attacks Bob, 4-6 it attacks Steve" works fine.

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.

100% agree with this. Morale is also a great way to encourage players to think of monsters as thinking creatures that can be non-lethally dealt with, rather than meaty bags of hit points.

If its an animal, they'll attack the nearest threat to them. If it is an intelligent creature their actions will vary, some will attack the weakest targets, others the strongest. If any character seems to have magic or miraculous power they will likely be targeted if unprotected. Some intelligent opponents may have particular hatred for clerics or magic-users (or other classifications, like nobles, women, etc), and will go out of their way to harm them.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 29, 2024, 09:35:45 PMOne 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.

That is a good idea. One of the projects I have cooking is a campaign with a heavy Lewis & Clark/Oregon Trail vibe, so I've been juggling some ideas about how to get across the idea that giving quarter to members of the various tribes they encounter on the journey might be critical in future dealings with them.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 29, 2024, 09:35:45 PMBy 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.

For me it's becoming a sticking point for immersion. Maybe I'm getting old and soft, but the sheer weightlessness of violence in RPGs is starting to disconnect me from my games.

Quote from: ForgottenF on October 30, 2024, 12:05:58 AMFor me it's becoming a sticking point for immersion. Maybe I'm getting old and soft, but the sheer weightlessness of violence in RPGs is starting to disconnect me from my games.

I've been there, and some games certainly make the disconnect worse. Typically hit point systems bother me the most, expecially if they are not built with some form of disabling/lingering wound effects. However, even those don't always patch it; I just had a Genesys character accumulate 5 critical injuries over the course of 3 encounters and yet he's likely to heal up without issue within a few in-game weeks.

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.

I almost never see that. Funny how much these kind of experiences differ.
My players tend to let surrendering monsters go. Occasionally this comes back to bite them, and I've noticed that a common way to get players angry at *me* is to have Chaotic Evil monsters continue to be CE after surrendering. One player insisted she now had "ownership" of the behaviour of some surrendered bugbears & I eventually had to boot her from the group. I think this (freedom from consequences/player determines consequences) is a feature of NeoTrad/OC play expectations that is anathema to me.

Quote from: S'mon on October 30, 2024, 05:22:17 AM

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.

I almost never see that. Funny how much these kind of experiences differ.
My players tend to let surrendering monsters go. Occasionally this comes back to bite them, and I've noticed that a common way to get players angry at *me* is to have Chaotic Evil monsters continue to be CE after surrendering. One player insisted she now had "ownership" of the behaviour of some surrendered bugbears & I eventually had to boot her from the group. I think this (freedom from consequences/player determines consequences) is a feature of NeoTrad/OC play expectations that is anathema to me.

I was playing in my brother's campaign (different group, less bloodthirsty) and gave him a break one night. I did a "side quest" so he could play. He had been commenting that the group was pretty powerful and he was having issues challenging them. I came up with the idea of a Mind Flayer had mind controlled a bunch of minions. This gave me a wide selection of opponents to toss at them. The set piece was the Mind Flayer and a bunch of Umber Hulks as his brute guards. Was a good fight, that one. They still won, but the Hulks made great meat shields while the Mind Flayer stayed at range blasting everyone with mind blasts.

Anywhodles, one of the encounters was a bunch of miscellaneous thralls the Mind Flayer had gathered up. I tossed in some rando humanoids. An elf, a dwarf, an orc, etc. The players actually skipped this encounter on the way into the lari and ran into them while exploring the rest of the place on the way out. The humanoids were free but confused. Most of them simply thanked the party, but I made a split second decision. It would be smart for the orc to promise to behave, but what if he was an obstinate jerk? So they told him he could leave if he promised to behave, and he told them to sod off. They did let him go, but it was a moment where the party was discussing whether they should let him go. He hadn't commited anything bad against them, and the only had his rep as an orc and a jerk to make their decision.

In your example, yeah. Part of the fun of RPGs is how actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences aren't neat and tidy. We generally want things to be messy so they lead to further adventures.

Quote from: S'mon on October 30, 2024, 05:22:17 AMOne player insisted she now had "ownership" of the behaviour of some surrendered bugbears & I eventually had to boot her from the group. I think this (freedom from consequences/player determines consequences) is a feature of NeoTrad/OC play expectations that is anathema to me.

That sounds like another gamer-brain thing. I could easily see that in a videogame where enemies surrender and then you use the "recruit" function or whatever and they fall under your control. IIRC some of the Total War games let you "recruit" prisoners abstractly to replenish your units, but I'll bet there's a tactics game out there somewhere that lets you literally add the enemy unit to your army.

Quote from: S'mon on October 30, 2024, 05:22:17 AM

QuoteAgree. 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.

I almost never see that. Funny how much these kind of experiences differ.

I rarely have my players kill an enemy that surrenders, if only because someone is usually playing a Paladin type and doesn't let them. But they are bizarrely obsessed with chasing enemies that flee, and get noticeably upset if any of them actually escape. I sometimes get the impression they feel they've "failed" the encounter if any of their opponents survive.

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 30, 2024, 01:44:44 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on October 30, 2024, 12:05:58 AMFor me it's becoming a sticking point for immersion. Maybe I'm getting old and soft, but the sheer weightlessness of violence in RPGs is starting to disconnect me from my games.

I've been there, and some games certainly make the disconnect worse. Typically hit point systems bother me the most, expecially if they are not built with some form of disabling/lingering wound effects. However, even those don't always patch it; I just had a Genesys character accumulate 5 critical injuries over the course of 3 encounters and yet he's likely to heal up without issue within a few in-game weeks.

Yeah, the topic has me wondering if I should just take a hiatus from D&D-style action-adventure and run a detective campaign or something as a palate cleanser.