On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Dave Hill wrote:

> Is an attack using this sort of Mook Group Challenge Track
> handled as ... well, how *is* it handled. Each player
> rolls, the mooks make a single en masse roll:
>
> Let's say that G1-4 beat the mooks, but the mooks beat G5.
> (Hey, it could happen -- that's why we even bother to run
> the combat, right?)
>
> So ... G5 takes damage on his wounds track from that
> single mook success (which is bolstered one,
> intrinsically, by the mooks' superior numbers).

Not the way I'd run it -- if the mooks are beat by even
one guy, they don't get the result.

> Do the mooks take damage on the track ...
>
> ... from the MoS from each of G1-4 (G1's Mos, G2's MoS,
> etc., which would tend to mean that the mooks would be
> toast after a single good exchange)?

Yeah. Mooks faw down fast if you throw enough PCs at them.
Keep in mind, the idea is that a Mook Mob is the "equal"
of a single PC. If they're facing five PCs, and you want
the fight to have some duration to it, you might want to
do it as five mobs.

> ... from just the *best* MoS by G1-4 (G1 got a MoS of 5,
> so the Good Guys have inflicted Heavy Casualties on the
> mooks over that lengthy-but-compressed exchange, while
> taking some hurt to G5).

This is certainly another way to handle it. The question
to ask yourself is whether you want a game where multiple
attackers on a single target (in this case, the mook mob)
yield multiple results (which I think is our default) or a
single result (which is what you're suggesting above and
is certainly a viable option)?

Multi-result combat is more lethal because you'll have
faster rollover of boxes, even when folks are getting a
bunch of otherwise "temporary" MoSes (if four guys get a
Clipped on a guy or mob who has two Clipped boxes, those
two free up, and then he takes two Hurts -- ouch!).

Note, you can mix this stuff up to taste -- and you don't
have to be fair. A game where the PCs are difficult to
harm and can face down armies might have a single-result
philosophy applied to attacks that succeed against PCs,
but a multi-result philosophy against NPCs. A Hong Kong
game might have a single-result philosophy (so named guys
and PCs can have a protracted shootout) but the poor mook
mobs might get the multi-result. And finally, a Cthulhu
game might operate under the rule that monsters only take
single-result pain while all others (i.e., humans and thus
PCs) face multi-result.

We should probably put this in a sidebar. :)

> Or do all of the Good Guys have to beat all of the Mooks,
> or vice-versa, for anything to happen (that seems a bit
> too abstracted, as well as less likely to resolve things
> quickly)?

Only one member of a 'side' needs to win an exchange in
order for the success to be in the hands of that side. The
only way your mook mob will hurt the PCs, at least in the
default set-up, will be if they beat *all* of them.

This is the 'safety in numbers' principle, effectively
(which you're *removing* from the Mooks since you're
treating them as a single entity, but *preserving* for
your PCs).

> One thing a compressed battle of this type seems likely to
> do is not only save time, but reduce the expenditure of
> materiel and, most importantly, Aspects, since the number
> of exchanges and rolls are reduced. Which is, perhaps, how
> it should also be (at least from a dramatic standpoint).

Yep. Look to your priorities, tune mechanics to fit.

--
Fred Hicks * "Curse you iago and your fast fingers!" - Rob Donoghue
Co-Author of Fate - Managing Editor of Fudge Factor - The 'fan' in fanatic
Fate RPG * http://www.faterpg.com/ Fudge Factor * http://www.fudgefactor.org/
Plink * http://www.rainlikely.com/ Jim Butcher * http://www.jim-butcher.com/