The problem with NPC behaviour in encounters.

[Raellus]

I once had a player complain that some of my OPFOR NPCs were too smart. He seemed surprised that bad guys would have a solid grasp of basic infantry tactics like fire-and-maneuver and flanking. He also complained when OPFOR pressed an attack despite sustaining casualties. He expected that marauders, in particular, would always retreat at the first site of their own blood.

For GM's, a potential solution to the problem that you described, Chalk, is to use the NPC playing card system of v1 to help determine the tactical competence of NPC OPFOR. One could modify the suit/number/face card system already in place, or simplify it further. Something like,

Spades- tactically sharp; will use every trick in the book
Clubs- brute force, favors frontal assaults
Hearts- tentative, will retreat at the first significant casualty
Diamonds- opportunistic, will only attack if it has a measurable advantage, favors ambushes

That's just off the top of my head, so I'm sure one could come up with a better system, but something along these lines would create a variety of competence levels of OPFOR for parties to go up against.

-

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That's just off the top of my head, so I'm sure one could come up with a better system, but something along these lines would create a variety of competence levels of OPFOR for parties to go up against.

-

Some of the "Novice" class are probably very skilled troops who are simply burned up. Common theory is that after a year of solid fighting a soldier starts to degrade significantly in ability

[Targan]

This looks a lot like a discussion on a T2K Facebook page in recent days.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Targan

This looks a lot like a discussion on a T2K Facebook page in recent days.

I often crosspost

I'm copping a bit of flak there but I get the feeling people think I'm criticising their old glory days and don't realise I still play the game

[unipus]

Well I guess my advice would be... don't do it that way? Unless that's the sort of game you want to play?

In any encounter I try to determine the actual motives of my NPCs, and give them a break point based on their training and situation. If that motive isn't directly related to the PCs, then the break point is much lower... even a gang of marauders isn't suicidally bloodthirsty and if they're just out looking for fresh water they probably don't have much stomach for a shootout.

I also absolutely never give my players perfect information. Maybe I don't give them enough information -- but I base this on their skills, experience, and spotting roles, as well as the conditions. At night? Usually nothing more than "you see some silhouettes approaching," and if they get closer or have light or during the day more details like "they seem military" up to "you can tell they have AKs." Only under good conditions or good rolls do they get "it's a Soviet soldier with an AK-74 and..." and the level of detail depends on experience. So we had a recent game where one character needed to explain to another the magic of thermal imaging technology and how they really didn't want to fuck around with it.

There was a very memorable session where this group decided to lay an ambush for a gang of marauders. It seemed like a solid plan, except that I rolled on an oracle "Hey, is this gang of marauders the first group that's going to come down this road tonight? Oh, they aren't... hmm." Soon enough a dozen or so silhouettes appear, getting closer. Nobody in the group even asked what they look like, and they opened fire as soon as they have a straight shot... on a group of refugees with barely even civilian weapons. Most of them were shredded in a grenade blast. It was an ugly scene and caused one of the PCs some lasting trauma -- as well as made them a new nemesis or two, out of the ones who escaped. Good times.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by unipus

[snip]I also absolutely never give my players perfect information. Maybe I don't give them enough information -- but I base this on their skills, experience, and spotting roles, as well as the conditions. At night? Usually nothing more than "you see some silhouettes approaching," and if they get closer or have light or during the day more details like "they seem military" up to "you can tell they have AKs." Only under good conditions or good rolls do they get "it's a Soviet soldier with an AK-74 and..." and the level of detail depends on experience. So we had a recent game where one character needed to explain to another the magic of thermal imaging technology and how they really didn't want to fuck around with it.
[snip]

This is so little understood. A good maxim in life is "no one ever has 100% information in anything". You get this hammered into your head when you study history and I find it applies it everything.

It also really brings scouting into its own, players should of course be encouraged to act and steal the initiative if an opportunity presents itself but I really like players who'll look at a situation and say "no, too tough". Many years ago I had players assault head on a hardened position and after the inevitable spate of woundings and two deaths I had to ask them why on earth they thought it was a good idea to attack. The general consensus was that they didn't think GMs put up challenges they couldn't beat straight on. I had to explain that beating that enemy involved not being detected and circumventing them.

[Adm.Lee]

My NPCs usually start off with fairly good tactics and will have a retreat point; whether I as GM can keep track of what I'm doing as well as run the game... well, YMMV.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

This is so little understood. A good maxim in life is "no one ever has 100% information in anything". You get this hammered into your head when you study history and I find it applies it everything.

It also really brings scouting into its own, players should of course be encouraged to act and steal the initiative if an opportunity presents itself but I really like players who'll look at a situation and say "no, too tough". Many years ago I had players assault head on a hardened position and after the inevitable spate of woundings and two deaths I had to ask them why on earth they thought it was a good idea to attack. The general consensus was that they didn't think GMs put up challenges they couldn't beat straight on. I had to explain that beating that enemy involved not being detected and circumventing them.

This. So this. In *any* genre of RPG - whether this, D&D, Supers, Western, Spies... The only game that really teaches players discretion right out of the gate is Call of Cthulhu... Everything else, it's learnt the hard way.