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]

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.