Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996552Mooks are hit points, in a sense, but only in combat. Granted, I'm not an expert and could be wrong but in the case of losing a squad of pursuing City Watch patrolmen, a successful roll is all that's needed. Now, if they were hot on your heels there might be Disadvantage dice which, depending on your roll, complicate things, but by my understanding of the rules having to "defeat" each one through stealth seems off.

OK, so the example of a stealth roll only removing one guard is an "anti-example"? LOL That makes sense. Thanks for the response!

Quote from: Tod13;996612OK, so the example of a stealth roll only removing one guard is an "anti-example"? LOL That makes sense. Thanks for the response!

You're welcome! FWIW, my interpretation is that defeating a minion per success is strictly combat. Minions don't have luck, which is a pretty big deal*. Also, if you're successful but only lose one out of five guards, you haven't been successful. To unpack things a bit, I'd look at the scene and see if Advantage or Challenge** dice might apply. Are there 10 guards chasing you through their barracks? You might get some Challenge dice. Is it at night and you have a headstart from above them on the rooftops? Advantage dice. Are they chasing you through a crowded market with shoulder-to-shoulder people? Maybe both types. The system's got strong but flexible ideas on levels of challenge and opposition. I'm eager to master it.

*As an aside, I really like how you can give tougher obstacles a Luck rating, such as a tough safe having 200 Luck. Or a burned-down house might have a key hidden behind a loose stone in the fireplace and it's 100 Luck worth of debris to access it.

**It's Challenge not Disadvantage dice. Apologies!

Can we discuss chess in the rpg forum? I made a saving throw when my king was in check.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996540His criteria for what's an RPG and what isn't is nonsensical. He trolls his own forums like a bratty kid and plays silly, passive-aggressive games about, well, games. I agree 100% that it's his house and he can do what he pleases. I will, however, call bullshit when I see it.

And I will call bullshit on the "nonsensical" aspect.  You love narrative mechanics and games that have them, that doesn't change what they are, what they do, or how they relate to games that don't have narrative control mechanics.  You can put your hands up, cover your ears and yell "Nyah nyah nyah" til the cows come home, doesn't change the fact that a game with such strong narrative control mechanics is hardly traditional, the only people to claim something like that, would be someone for who no game would ever be classified as "non-traditional", because they are opposed to the definition even existing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;996639And I will call bullshit on the "nonsensical" aspect.  You love narrative mechanics and games that have them, that doesn't change what they are, what they do, or how they relate to games that don't have narrative control mechanics.  You can put your hands up, cover your ears and yell "Nyah nyah nyah" til the cows come home, doesn't change the fact that a game with such strong narrative control mechanics is hardly traditional, the only people to claim something like that, would be someone for who no game would ever be classified as "non-traditional", because they are opposed to the definition even existing.

It's not an argument about what's traditional, it's the stupid statement that Dusk City Outlaws isn't a roleplaying game, coupled with Pundit's childish trolling and head-scratching "standards". Stick to the issue.

Quote from: Biscuitician;996629Can we discuss chess in the rpg forum? I made a saving throw when my king was in check.

Oh, shit! I just realized this is the RPG Site! A forum for discussing roleplaying games! How is this thread even possible?! :eek:

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996669It's not an argument about what's traditional, it's the stupid statement that Dusk City Outlaws isn't a roleplaying game, coupled with Pundit's childish trolling and head-scratching "standards". Stick to the issue.

That's fine. And your posts of about DCO are engaging and informative. But...

As CRKrueger explained, Pundit's classification is very simple. Games that give narrative control to the players are storytelling games/story-games. Pundit, for reasons, classifies these games as different from "RPGs". Join one of the oft-appearing threads discussing story-games, narrative mechanics, and RPGs. If you don't make it an ax-grinder on this particular game, it'll be fine. There was one in June and one at the beginning of August. So, it sounds like we're due for one in October.

Based on the forum description that says See "Other Games" forum below for story-games, Pundit moved the thread to the correct sub-forum. He did it in typical Pundit "style", but I'd rather have that than the 1984 Big Brother tactics of TBP where people and posts disappear without explanation and even asking questions gets you banned. Pundit is abrasive at times, but he's honest.

Moving the post was not a big deal in my opinion. As I mentioned elsewhere, I usually like this sub-forum better, as fewer of the threads descend into the predictable never-ending back and forth between the usual suspects. Yes, Pundit was in-your-face about moving it. But all he basically said, really, was "according to the site rules and how the site classifies games, this thread belongs in a different category, so I'm moving it." Not really a big deal in those terms.

AC, personally, I'd stick with just talking about the game. You explain it well and interestingly, enough to get several of us looking at it and considering some of the mechanics in a positive light. Don't take Pundit's reactions personally or worry about other people's definitions of RPG, or wargame, or story-game. All that does in this thread is distract from learning about DCO and getting people interested in it.

Back to the topic at hand:

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996552Mooks are hit points, in a sense, but only in combat.

How does this work in practice? By, "work" I mean, "how do players like this and react to it?"

In my RPG game, I initially had "normal monsters" being "mooks" with 1HP each, and all weapons did 1HP of damage. Boss Monsters had multiple hit points.

But my players really disliked it. It made monsters just feel hack-and-slashy. They love dungeon crawls as one component of the game, but really, really want smarter monsters they can talk to and interact with, and the "mob" approach to monsters gave the wrong feel to the game for them.

Quote from: Tod13;996809That's fine. And your posts of about DCO are engaging and informative. But...

As CRKrueger explained, Pundit's classification is very simple. Games that give narrative control to the players are storytelling games/story-games. Pundit, for reasons, classifies these games as different from "RPGs". Join one of the oft-appearing threads discussing story-games, narrative mechanics, and RPGs. If you don't make it an ax-grinder on this particular game, it'll be fine. There was one in June and one at the beginning of August. So, it sounds like we're due for one in October.

Based on the forum description that says See "Other Games" forum below for story-games, Pundit moved the thread to the correct sub-forum. He did it in typical Pundit "style", but I'd rather have that than the 1984 Big Brother tactics of TBP where people and posts disappear without explanation and even asking questions gets you banned. Pundit is abrasive at times, but he's honest.

Moving the post was not a big deal in my opinion. As I mentioned elsewhere, I usually like this sub-forum better, as fewer of the threads descend into the predictable never-ending back and forth between the usual suspects. Yes, Pundit was in-your-face about moving it. But all he basically said, really, was "according to the site rules and how the site classifies games, this thread belongs in a different category, so I'm moving it." Not really a big deal in those terms.

AC, personally, I'd stick with just talking about the game. You explain it well and interestingly, enough to get several of us looking at it and considering some of the mechanics in a positive light. Don't take Pundit's reactions personally or worry about other people's definitions of RPG, or wargame, or story-game. All that does in this thread is distract from learning about DCO and getting people interested in it.

It would be great if my posts helped spur interest. DCO is really growing on me. You are correct and that should be the focus.

Quote from: Tod13;996811Back to the topic at hand:



How does this work in practice? By, "work" I mean, "how do players like this and react to it?"

In my RPG game, I initially had "normal monsters" being "mooks" with 1HP each, and all weapons did 1HP of damage. Boss Monsters had multiple hit points.

But my players really disliked it. It made monsters just feel hack-and-slashy. They love dungeon crawls as one component of the game, but really, really want smarter monsters they can talk to and interact with, and the "mob" approach to monsters gave the wrong feel to the game for them.

To be clear, I haven't played it yet. I've read a lot of it and have a pretty solid grasp of it. I've watched it being played and have "test run" segments by myself to better GM it. It's similar to other games I have run and I can say that my players have really enjoyed "mook rules". However, I feel a game should facilitate minions or it can feel off. FFG's Star Wars uses minions, for example, and it feels good. I tried using my own minion rules in 5e and it felt cheap. It wasn't bad, just...off. Maybe I could've made it work, I just didn't fiddle with it much. Did any of that help?

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996853To be clear, I haven't played it yet. I've read a lot of it and have a pretty solid grasp of it. I've watched it being played and have "test run" segments by myself to better GM it. It's similar to other games I have run and I can say that my players have really enjoyed "mook rules". However, I feel a game should facilitate minions or it can feel off. FFG's Star Wars uses minions, for example, and it feels good. I tried using my own minion rules in 5e and it felt cheap. It wasn't bad, just...off. Maybe I could've made it work, I just didn't fiddle with it much. Did any of that help?

A bit. I think it may just be what the players expect/want in terms of enemies. For my players, potential "mooks" could end up being long-term NPCs or someone they spend a lot time talking/dealing with. Thanks!

In the case of a mook who jumps into the spotlight and matters more, they're no longer a mook. For example, your Vesper Alchemist, Archimedes Finch, is being chased by a squad from the City Watch. You're cornered by them and a melee ensues. You don't kill any of them, whittling their numbers down to one: the squad leader, Corporal Glastow. After some breathless banter, you manage to defeat the Corporal, but just barely. A well-timed smoke bomb and you scurry up a wall, Glastow's roared promise of vengeance echoing in the night...

Now, when you next meet the Corporal (and as a GM you most definitely will!) he most assuredly will not be a mook. He will have a Luck rating and is now a minor villain. It's simply a matter of fictional importance. Mook rules a great ways to showcase the derring-do of PCs without engaging with more granular, robust opposition who are generally more pivotal to the story.

Rules like these are, to me, fantastic. It's less of a burden on the GM and gives PCs a chance to engage in genre-appropriate fights. I will respect that such a take isn't good for every game. A game such as, say WH40KRP, might benefit load-wise from mook rules, but if you want to capture the grim and gritty of the setting, such rules might not work. But in the case of DCO it's a gem.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996907
Rules like these are, to me, fantastic. It's less of a burden on the GM and gives PCs a chance to engage in genre-appropriate fights. I will respect that such a take isn't good for every game. A game such as, say WH40KRP, might benefit load-wise from mook rules, but if you want to capture the grim and gritty of the setting, such rules might not work. But in the case of DCO it's a gem.

I think you've hit it. It is a setting thing. I think the mook rules are great for something like Barbarians of Lemuria. But I think, like your attempt to use them in 5e, if you're running a "D&D setting, even if you aren't using D&D" game, mooks just feel off.

I think mook rules would work in Eberron, at least the way I see its level of pulpy goodness. In this case I think it's setting-appropriate, but has mechanical dissonance. In the more dark and deadly Forgotten Realms (again, the way I picture that setting) mooks would seem out of place.

It seems you're somewhat interested in DCO. Is there any other stuff you want to know?

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996941
It seems you're somewhat interested in DCO. Is there any other stuff you want to know?

I'm good for now. Thanks! :-)