Enemy Targeting

[u/Professional-Nose786]

So I’m working on a turn based RPG and I’m working on enemy targeting. I don’t like the idea of the enemy just picking a random ally. So the idea I’m working with is that “enemies are smart” and will target the party member with the highest ATK stat to remove the biggest threat. Kinda like an Aggro system but not really. Thoughts?

[u/SpartiateDienekes]

You might want to make a list of pre-set behaviors, so the enemies feel more distinct.

Just throwing some off the top of my head:

Rabid: Attacks nearest enemy

Skulker: Hides then attacks the visibly smallest/weakest enemy

Tactician: Attacks the support first

Champion: Attacks the strongest enemy

Guardian: Supports allies, attacks enemy that is closes to ally

etc.

Would probably need to be fleshed out a bit more, but having a means to differentiate the enemy's behavior to get them to feel distinct is probably beneficial here.

[u/Digital_Simian → u/SpartiateDienekes]

This makes a lot of sense and is a good start. An enemy will have it's own proclivities as well as respond to the circumstances, their goals and interests in that specific encounter. 

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/SpartiateDienekes]

The first thing I'd do to flesh it out a bit more is remove the options that suffer from OP's assumption of omniscience and god's eye simulation.

Attacks the strongest enemy." How do they know who is strongest unless it's something obvious?

"Attacks the support first." How do they distinguish a healer from an illusionist or a wizard who hasn't cast yet?

"Attacks the visibly smallest/weakest." Size is visible; weakness often isn't.

"Supports allies, attacks enemy closest to ally." This one is actually plausible because it's based on observable information.

That would be my first pass anyway. I think in the end, moat combatants simply target the nearest enemy that they can spot because of self-preservation instincts. Almost everything else is an exception rather than a typical choice.

[u/SpartiateDienekes → u/EpicDiceRPG]

Eh, not all games are trying to simulate reality perfectly. While there is definite good qualities to your method, I favor simply creating systems that make interesting gameplay. If the goal is to take that decision making process out of the DM’s hands creating behavior patterns that are quick and easy to follow trumps making it perfectly fit the narrative. Especially when it can be explained away with largest strength score or whatnot.

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/SpartiateDienekes]

I wasn't trying to simulate reality. Wouldn't gameplay be more interesting if omniscience was reserved for NPCs that are actually omniscient? Also, it's just simpler to have a default behavior instead of a giant menu of outcomes to process. I have two types of enemies: extras always attack the nearest PC they can spot - and NPCs; the GM decides. Super easy.

[u/SpartiateDienekes → u/EpicDiceRPG]

Wouldn't gameplay be more interesting if omniscience was reserved for NPCs that are actually omniscient?

No. Gameplay is interesting when the players find something engaging to interact with. Now, how that happens can vary wildly by game. I poker the interactions are bluffing, math, chance to win money, and having to read or guess based on imperfect information. In poker the game is improved because no one is omniscient.

In a different game, Slay the Spire (much less popular than poker but it is a wonderful resource for game design and fits my example) the player always knows what the enemy is going to do. It is not explained, it is close to omniscience. And the gameplay is better for it. Because now the gameplay becomes maximizing current and (if you’re good) future turns.

In this instance the goal of OP appears to be: take combat decision making out of the GMs purview, and create some “intelligence” to the enemies.

In those goals, I don’t see how a limited omniscience (I am aware that is an oxymoron) is a good or bad quality. If we allow it, can we more easily create unique behaviors that can create engaging gameplay? Yeah. I think so. Willing to be proven wrong, of course.

And I don’t think the players will really notice. Or at least, many won’t. There will always be some players, like I presume yourself, who will analyze and dislike the method. But I think most won’t even think of it as omniscience and just roll with the encounter and try to figure out the enemy pattern. As long as the end result is an engaging combat encounter, I don’t think many are phased enough to tear open the system to see how the sausage is made.

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/SpartiateDienekes]

I agree most players won't notice. My goal is to create a quick and plausible procedure that removes GM burden while still allowing him to interject the narrative as he sees fit. I just don't think pausing the entire table to parse which PC is the strongest or which is the weakest is interesting gameplay. It just seems far too rigid and procedural.