Last week I ran Black Crusade with a fight between the 2 pc's and 2 Dark Eldar Kabalites. The game's combat rules set out a long list of combat options with associated rules (stuff like grappling, aiming, called shots - the usual stuff). It's quite handy in many ways, but it left me thinking: I have to consider what behaviour is appropriate for the enemies. How do they fight? How should I run this encounter? Do I want them to go all out to kill the pc's or should I try and take it easy, at least at first; is it me versus the pc's?
Perhaps in NPC writeups there might be a Threat mecahanism. This isn't a set of rules to roll against; instead it's their 'AI' behaviour and it can include what manoeuvres they do or don't use. I haven't seen this done in other games.
So a Dark Eldar Kabalite is a cruel warrior that delights in hurting and killing. They aren't raging berserkers; they are physically weak, but quick (that didn't stop me rolling piss poorly for their attacks, which actually worked out for the best). So their behaviour might be "Slasher" - someone that loves to hurt, but not to kill as quickly as possible; then you might have a list of manoeuvres they use. For instance probably not the All Out Attack or the Charge moves (which I used as they were too close for their Splinter Rifles, which I didn't want them to use from the off because i wasn't sure if they were too deadly).
I think this might work quite well.

Go away.

I would go away, but I played a Dark Eldar army in W40K for several years. Dark Eldar aren't primarily killers - they're pirates and slavers. They would often get bonus victory points for taking captives. Plus, they're torturers. Hard to torture a corpse.

So, basically, unless they truly believe their lives are under massive threat, they'll try to cause maximum pain and subdue, followed by capture. They'll never go for the quickest kill.

At least, that's my read on their psychology. Pretty much think you're right about how they'd work.

Yeah dark eldar would more than likely try to incapacitate opponents so they can capture them either for torture reasons or to use in their twisted games(think hellraiser meets gladiator set within the webways the dark eldar live), i'd have them constantly moving about never staying put long enough to be locked onto with weapons, probably as a tactic to draw the more headstrong "kill 'em all" players into an ambush where they can be overwhelmed and captured easier.

It's not just for Dark Eldar, or even 40k.

I think it's something that could be adopted for all games. I've never seen it in any other game design and I think it could be useful. Helping the GM figure out what his characters do and how they operate.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;556750It's not just for Dark Eldar, or even 40k.

I think it's something that could be adopted for all games. I've never seen it in any other game design and I think it could be useful. Helping the GM figure out what his characters do and how they operate.

Correct.

It's a thing most of us probably do without thinking about it. But if it's got a bit more substance it can, I guess, head off suspicions the GM is just changing things on the fly to avoid (or produce) TPK and character death.

Here are a few options to start a list:

1) Merciless, pitiless and efficient killers
2) Do enough damage to ensure their own getaway (may involve killing if to prevent pursuit or identification)
3) Mostly interested in forcing surrender, flight or incapacitiating, only kill if they have to or shit just happens
4) Highly chivalrous, won't harm an incapacitated foe
5) Will finish off incapacitiated enemies and call it 'mercy'
6) Don't distinguish between incapacitation and death, so long as they can now do whatever horrible thing they like doing to the victim, of which eating is the least unpleasant
7) Leave victims alive but enjoy mutilating them as a reminder of who's the boss.
Merciless, but won't stop to deliver a coup de grace while there's still a fight going on

Reminds me of the story of the battle of Beneventum (2nd punic War) - in which the roman general with an army of slaves (rome a bit pushed for troops at the time) had guaranteed freedom to all those who brought back an enemy head. once they started winning, his battle started grinding to a halt as his men used every opportunity to take a head off a dead or incapacitated foe - and of course then thought, 'job done'. General had to put the order out that they'd all get freedom anyway, now please get on with fighting the enemy...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't D&D4e essentially do this in the Monster Manual? I thought one of the earliest criticisms of the game was that it removed most of the monster lore and replaced it with a round by round set of tactics. Or am I misreading the post? (Not ruling it out, I did just wake up).

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;556799Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't D&D4e essentially do this in the Monster Manual? I thought one of the earliest criticisms of the game was that it removed most of the monster lore and replaced it with a round by round set of tactics.

Well yes, but I am not sure how many people have looked at the 4th MM in depth.

Quote from: jadrax;556820Well yes, but I am not sure how many people have looked at the 4th MM in depth.

Not me. I haven't read any DnD stuff. As I say it's possible other games have done this, but not to my knowledge.

I've done this on a VERY simple level, adapting the fight or flee creature mechanic in ClassicTraveller for NPCs, both civilians and combatants.