Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I must have missed it the first time. So improvising is only "game deprecating" when it is bad improvising? Isn't that a self evident statement? Can't running planned events be just as "game deprecating" if the planning is bad? What do you mean by mislead? How do you go about misleading or not? If I'm doing it right, how should they know? I like my games to be seamless, I certainly don't want the players knowing if they are interacting with planned or improvised elements, if I can help it.

There is no "game deprecating". I wrote, "deprecated game-breaking behaviors." Deprecated meaning other people besides just me have spoken out against them, game-breaking because they can damage the mutual trust people need to exchange power and enjoy cooperative roleplay, and behavior, because I was trying to distinguish between saying the choice to do it can have bad consequences without sending the message that the people choosing to do it are bad. (This effort does not seem to have been appreciated in light of how popular the choice to take offense regardless has been.)

That said: That sort of suspension of disbelief (people can't tell what is made up on the spot versus what was arranged ahead of time) is good and expected, but putting on as if you are running a game with objective conflict resolution when you are changing circumstances to favor a subjectively desired outcome is a moral hazard. It's the difference between improvising to cover a gap in planning and improvising a change in the established encounter to preserve the direction of the plot.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

What's the distinction here? Are the totals not merely the sum of the costs?

PC totals are limited by the GM. NPC totals may be as well, but not necessarily the same limit. But either way, detailed point costs and totals, equipment, et al, contribute to judging the readiness and completeness of a character build, similar to the way checking for tied shoelaces and zipped flies contribute to a judgment about a person's discipline.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

These things are only needed when relevant. I don't really need to know how many hours the bog monster studied Brawling do I?

It might be important for simulationism, as the bog monster will get better over time if it survives and gets in practice struggling with the other soggy denizens. Or narratively, it might represent the bog monster's former life as local thug before being cursed or succombing to leprosy or prophyria, or in gamist mode, it could help establish how long the creep had been around as a clue toward finding out more about it in order to overcome it as a plot obstacle. Or it could be not for anything in particular other than to show you were paying attention when you made the character, like "this page intentionally left blank" in a manual.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Just throwing some numbers out there...if there are ten people in a population of 6 billion with a stat of 20, 1 sigma is 1.7, more or less.

If you accept that (you need not), just over 50% of the population will have any individual stat between 8 and 12. 25% would be below that, and the other 25% above.

I don't see how that fits the usual bell curve. If the median is 10 and 1 sigma is 1.7, you've got the usual 34.13% falling between 8.3 and 10, and the usual 34.13% falling between 10 and 11.7 - that right there is 68.26%, much more than your 50% figure and still not covering people all the way to 8 or 12, or the people who round up or down to those values. Are you using some particular method of rounding or otherwise mapping the continuous or fractional values to the integral attribute scores?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

It might be important for simulationism, as the bog monster will get better over time if it survives and gets in practice struggling with the other soggy denizens.

This is a useful comment, though probably not for the reason you're thinking. Simulationism is a minority perspective on gaming; even most 'realistic' games are more interested in verisimilitude than actual simulation. This doesn't make simulationism wrong, but you're not being a bad gamer if you simply don't care about detailed simulation.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by whswhs

And every single template can easily be turned into such a generic character sheet. Indeed, that's one of the intended uses of templates. Pointing that out to new GMs could help them avoid a lot of problems.

This sort of thing meets most of my needs and preferences as well.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I think that considering them independent is optimistic in the extreme. They are probably inter-related in some complex way.

Probably, but Trooper6 stood on the letter of the rules to justify his Tiered scheme, so I analyzed it on the same basis.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by trooper6

In GURPS ST, IQ, DX, HT are not independent random variable. In GURPS 10 is Average, and everyone gets it for free. Having 10 in all for stats doesn't make you above average, it makes you average. Please review B14, under How to select basic Attributes. And under Basic Attributes.

B14: "A score of 10 in any attribute is free, and represents the human average."

B14: "8 or 9: Below Average. Such scores are limiting, but within the human norm. The GM may forbid attributes below 8 to active adventurers.
10: Average. Most humans [not your 0.03%] get by just fine with a score of 10!
11 or 12: Above average. These scores are superior, but within the human norm."

The stats are aren't random like in D&D. There are set at 10 by default.

That's not what "independent random variable" means with respect to statistics and probability theory. The free scores of ten represent the average in any one attribute, but the other attribute values are still possible in order to model the range of human ability, which obviously varies above and below the average in each attribute, making them variables. There is no particular connection between their levels in the game rules other than the constraints of point budgets, which you and many others have gone to great pains to remind me that NPCs don't have, so they are independent. Further, they are treated statistically as if they were sampled at random within the constraints stipulated, despite the individual values being chosen and not randomly generated, like the numbers at Baskin Robbins.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

That isn't the situation I'm describing. I am referencing the attempts by various posters to stat truly godlike creatures (often those that have very limited impact on the campaign) for example: http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=9738

This poster couldn't even decide what the primordial entities in question actually even were in his campaign but he was still struggling to stat them.

Well, I try to have a firm character concept in mind before I consider it ready to proceed to the detailing step, so I'd tell him he would need to work on that first. Except that it looks more to me like he had one in mind (Ouranos) but ws being silly about it rather than genuinely trying to decide how many hit points Ouranos should have.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

You seem to be saying that you can't run a game unless you have a character sheet for the being that created the universe in that setting. If not Banestorm, than any other setting will do. Please post the character sheet of God (or gods as appropriate).

I don't recall saying anything like that, can you refresh my memory? I make sheets for any NPCs likely to appear, which has yet to include any members of the Godhead. I've had a few angels, some Tuatha Da Dana, and an Exalted Man, though.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Probably, but Trooper6 stood on the letter of the rules to justify his Tiered scheme, so I analyzed it on the same basis.

Very good.

I'd like to note that one of the reasons I favour not using the character creation system, complete with the emphasis of point costs, to create NPCs is because the letter of the rules are unlikely to produce results that are realistic or plausible.

A 25-point-character can be exquisitely balanced by the letter of the rules and still feel extremely unrealistic. The need to fit him in to a point budget may lead to some traits being omitted when they really should not have been or alternatively, for traits being chosen to fill out a point budget and not because they follow naturally from the NPC's genetics, environment, motivations and other circumstances.

Yes, I'm aware that GMs can use the character creation system while simultaneously keeping plausibility and consistency in mind. I just think that the point costs and point budgets are a distraction that add no independent value and will tend to lead GMs down undesirable paths.

The primary consideration while creating NPCs should be their role in the campaign. If the GM is running a very narrativistic campaign, the NPCs should be defined by their narrative role. If the campaign is simulationist, the NPCs should be defined by the same things that define real people, some complex set of circumstances and genetics. Only if the game is strongly gamist should the NPCs be defined primarily by their game mechanical builds.

I realise that by advising people to avoid gamist campaigns, I'm making a value judgment about BadWrongFun. And that's wrong of me. But I think that if one really wants a gamist game, there are better systems out there than GURPS. Using GURPS for a gamist game is to ignore most of its strengths and play to its weaknesses.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I realise that by advising people to avoid gamist campaigns, I'm making a value judgment about BadWrongFun. And that's wrong of me. But I think that if one really wants a gamist game, there are better systems out there than GURPS. Using GURPS for a gamist game is to ignore most of its strengths and play to its weaknesses.

I agree that what Jeff has been stressing and suggesting would lead to a gamist game, I'm sure that his RPG sessions are not like a war game played using GURPS, but that's what all this emphasis on overstatting and NPC point values would lead anyone too if followed.

(And no Bill, we're not talking about you at all.)

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Probably, but Trooper6 stood on the letter of the rules to justify his Tiered scheme, so I analyzed it on the same basis.

And I've also said a million times, but you keep ignoring, that if you want to have an All 9 base Tier, or an All 8 Base Tier than you also use as your jumping off point for tweaking that would be trivial to do. I don't, because I don't find they add to my games. I rather start with base 10, as the rules say, and tweak up or down from there. I could have 5 Tiers, all 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

The *point* is--because GURPS gives you a base line. Most people have 10s...that's what is says right in the box on B14...you can take that as your starting base and customize on the fly to your taste. I find with 150pt PCs running around, all 8 folks not that useful.

But there is clearly not much of a point talking with you Jeff, because you generally ignore the substance of my posts in order to be argumentative. Enjoy your games. I, and my players, enjoy mine.