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

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

I am arguing against Jeff because he's categorizing everyone who disagrees with him as the extreme position. The extreme position to which, as far as I can tell, nobody actually subscribes.

Now hold, I say, now hold on there, son.

The extreme position that in fact the person Jeff was quoting stated in so many words, and that you are choosing to read as overheated rhetoric that he couldn't possibly have actually meant?

The extreme position that you summarized as That you don't need stats for NPCs beyond their raw capabilities - those values which actually interact with the PCs; you don't need to stat them using the full character creation rules. The Merchant doesn't need much beyond Merchant skill and maybe Will; the bar wench doesn't need anything beyond Appearance; and for the Car which is merely serving as a mode of transportation you only need to know that it runs? And that, from all appearances, you adhere to, because you don't seem to think there is anything controversial about it, or any need to limit its applicability?

I'm sorry, but it sounds to me as if there are people who subscribe to the extreme position that Jeff attributes to people who disagree with him. Jeff may be overestimating how many there are. But that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Bill Stoddard

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Now hold, I say, now hold on there, son.

The extreme position that in fact the person Jeff was quoting stated in so many words, and that you are choosing to read as overheated rhetoric that he couldn't possibly have actually meant?

Even that position wasn't as extreme as Jeff made it out to be by chopping it up, since Humabout did *NOT* say you should never, ever, stat up any non PC - which is the position Jeff seems to have been arguing against from the get-go. Humabout just said that you shouldn't use any more stats than is necessary for an NPCs niche in the game.

Humabout's positition was an extreme statement because he was saying, in absolute terms, that EVERYBODY should do it the minimalist way, not because of the methodology he espoused. There are tons of people who only stat up NPCs miminally, just as there are many who stat them up fully. The extremism is in the belief that others absolutely must do it that way, which wasn't what Jeff was calling him on; instead he was arguing over which end of the spectrum was the correct one which everybody should be using (and while he really didn't come out an say as much in the original question, he has since clarified as much).

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm sorry, but it sounds to me as if there are people who subscribe to the extreme position that Jeff attributes to people who disagree with him. Jeff may be overestimating how many there are. But that doesn't mean there aren't any.

The extreme position Jeff's is arguing against is that "NPCs should never be statted, ever" when in fact the original quote, before it was chopped up, was "NPC shouldn't be statted beyond the minimum necessary for PC interaction." AFAICT there is nobody arguing that "NPCs should never be statted, ever."

I don't find either end of the spectrum between "Stat up as little as is necessary" and "stat up as much as you can" to be particularly extreme; most of the extremism has come from people either ascribing the opposite extreme (stat up everything/nothing) to the people they're arguing against, or from people stating that their own way is the One True Way.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by whswhs

And that's what I find deeply alien. For me, the character sheet is a device that enhances my ability to focus on thinking about the character. It's not a tradeoff of "think about the character or write up the character sheet"; doing the character sheet enables me to do more thinking about the character, and at the end I have a character sheet as well.

I don't deny that the GURPS character creation system is essentially a language which can be used to describe a character. But the thing I find so difficult to believe is that you find this language to be more efficient than English when it comes to doing so.

I used to stat out NPCs. It worked, on some level. I mean, I certainly played games.

It's just that each NPC took far longer to make than one I made with narrative description and the information I gained from the process was less immediately useful for portraying the character.

For me, translating numerical values on a character sheet into narrative description is a process of translation that takes a non-trivial amount of time. It may only be a few seconds, but that's still non-trivial when a session might involve hundreds of NPCs. And that's not even counting the 10-15 minutes spent on initially making each sheet.

By contrast, translating a narrative description into numerical capability for one specific task usually takes only as long as the dice take to roll. So no time is lost and no work has to be done except that which directly benefits the game.

Note that just because I don't work out point costs, my NPCs are not necessarily less developed. I have absolutely no problem with assigning an NPC a debt, enemies, friends, contacts and a list of fields of expertise in addition to a full psych profile. The difference is that writing 'friends with Sebastian Silverlocke, the Dean of Abjuration of the Wizards Guild' or 'an expert French Smallsword fencer with a fondness for fighting defensively until he can get in a decisive attack in one time' tells me more about the character than spending an equal amount of time working out point costs for those traits.

[RedMattis]

This is starting to get confusing, it is starting to feel more like we're arguing about how others argue than actually approaching the topic.

Is there anyone who disagrees with the following statements, or would like it worded differently?

'It is recommended for new GMs to avoid assigning stats greatly beyond what is likely going to be required for the NPC to fulfil it's role. This is recommended because to much statting can overwhelm a new GM
Creating stats for NPCs either in the form of complete characters with character sheets or NPC-sheets can be good practice and a good, albeit often slow, way to flesh out that particular NPC, and speed up play.
For moderately important or even core NPCs many experienced GURPS GMs recommend special NPC-sheets in order to get down all the needed detail in a speedy way.'

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I don't deny that the GURPS character creation system is essentially a language which can be used to describe a character. But the thing I find so difficult to believe is that you find this language to be more efficient than English when it comes to doing so.

I believe you've mentioned you're a lawyer in your dayjob. Natural human language, its manipulation, and expressing yourself in it is obviously your position of strength. I'm not terribly surprised that you find any natural human language that you're fluent in better than an artificial description "code".

I'm a programmer. Almost nobody is very good at thinking like a computer, that's why good programmers are sort of rare - and why we're often quite weird and cranky with other people. My big skill, my position of strength, is forcing myself into the headspace where computers are natural and intuitive (and humans are noisy irritating things that exist to interrupt me). I find it a LOT easier to explain complex procedures as a "computer-like" algorythm than explaining it in English, my native language. I'm pretty darn good at breaking things down in English, but before I get there I'm basically working it out in my head in computer logic, then TRANSLATING it.

Character generation in most RPGs (definitely in GURPS) to me has more in common with the way I think when I'm in "programming mode" than the way I think when I'm in "people mode". And it's a lot easier for me to work with than a prose description when describing a character's current state.

The prose description is still valuable for describing character history and character appearance, mostly because character sheets don't actually DO that so you have no other choice.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Even that position wasn't as extreme as Jeff made it out to be by chopping it up, since Humabout did *NOT* say you should never, ever, stat up any non PC - which is the position Jeff seems to have been arguing against from the get-go. Humabout just said that you shouldn't use any more stats than is necessary for an NPCs niche in the game.

I'm sorry, but your explanation of Humabout's position seems to be exactly the extreme one that Jeff made it out to be. Your examples certainly support this: The merchant with one skill and one stat, the barmaid with one advantage. You don't give any example of a "minimal" set of stats for an NPC being, say, a standard "merchant" or "barmaid" character sheet with a couple of placeholders for optional skills. The natural inference is that you and he believe that any full character sheet always exceeds the minimum. I don't object to hairsplitting as such (obviously!), but I can't even see the hair you're trying to split here.

Bill Stoddard

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by RedMattis

Is there anyone who disagrees with the following statements, or would like it worded differently?

I'd word it somewhat differently:

'It is recommended that GMs shouldn't bother to assign stats before game beyond what is likely going to be required for any NPC to fulfill its expected role, unless they have plenty of free time and enjoy the statting process. Notes should be taken during play which can then be used to flesh out NPCs which have become relevant and developed well beyond the basic notes.
This is recommended because too much statting before a session can overwhelm any GM and the most important thing a GM can do is run the game, and to not run due to a misguided need to stat up NPCs is a detriment to our hobby.

Creating stats for NPCs, either in the form of complete characters with character sheets, or NPC-sheets, can be good practice and a good, albeit often slow way to flesh out any particular NPC, be aware this doesn't necessarily speed up play or necessarily inspire all GMs.
For moderately important or even core NPCs some experienced GURPS GMs recommend special NPC-sheets in order to get down all the needed detail in a speedy way before play, while others reserve that recommendation for after play in order to aid in portraying a consistent setting.

Many GMs get their inspiration and creative juices going while running games, try it, you may find that you don't need to pre-stat as much as you thought you did.'

[davidtmoore]

Crikey.

To be honest, I don't even see why this argument is happening, much less taking up 51 pages.

The GM decides how much detail to create any NPC in. Some GMs painstakingly detail every NPC the plot demands, and carry a folio of pre-generated random NPCs for when the players wander off the beaten plot; others have three or four fully-realised major NPCs, sketchy stats for a handful of less-significant plot NPCs, and improvise everyone else as the game proceeds; a few improvise every single NPC, reckoning that no plot (or ensemble) will survive contact with half-a-dozen ingenious players. We all lie somewhere on this spectrum, and very few of us at either extreme.

Is there a point going more to the former end of this scale than the latter? What does that even mean? What would you understand me to mean if I said, "there is no point buying Oreos?" If you like Oreos, you will eat them, so there is a point; if you don't, you'll probably just have to sling them out when they go out of date, so there's no point. But no-one's going to agree on an absolute, objective answer to the question.

GMs with fully-realised NPCs have certainly gone to more effort; arguably more than they needed to to run the game. I may consider that time wasted, or thoughtful dedication, but in the end it's the GM's time to waste, so if he wants to do it, if it gives him confidence when using the NPC and if it satisfies his requirement for a well-prepared and complex campaign, then he should go for it. It's really no concern of mine.

The important, final question is, when my PC wants to engage an NPC in a contest of some sort, will the GM know the skill levels I'm competing against? The answer, of course, is in all cases "yes." He may make it up at the instant I start trying to fast-talk him, attack him, buy something off him or whatever, or he may have a fully-realised sheet to hand, but he will know and I will have my competition. And how he achieves it is going to come down to whatever style of GMing the GM likes, and whatever style of GMing I'm comfortable playing with.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I don't deny that the GURPS character creation system is essentially a language which can be used to describe a character. But the thing I find so difficult to believe is that you find this language to be more efficient than English when it comes to doing so.

. . .

For me, translating numerical values on a character sheet into narrative description is a process of translation that takes a non-trivial amount of time. It may only be a few seconds, but that's still non-trivial when a session might involve hundreds of NPCs. And that's not even counting the 10-15 minutes spent on initially making each sheet.

By contrast, translating a narrative description into numerical capability for one specific task usually takes only as long as the dice take to roll. So no time is lost and no work has to be done except that which directly benefits the game.

Well, to begin with, you write as if you thought I were advocating doing a complete character sheet for every single NPC the PCs might encounter. I've said repeatedly that I don't do that. See my list of the NPCs from Foam of Perilous Seas for the actual extent to which I do this . . . and note that the secondary merchant captains, the crews of the merchant ships, the barkeepers in the taverns, the bard who befriended the Greek sailing master by trading insults about liking boys and sheep with him, the thief who picked a PC's pocket, and the weaver who made one of the PCs a new tunic out of spider silk all were made up on the spot.

So when do I do a full character sheet? When I have reason to anticipate that the NPC will be interacting with the PCs repeatedly, and using multiple different capabilities to do so. When I want one or more of those capabilities to be distinctive and cool, and want to specify its capabilities and limits exactly. When I want to have a few picturesque details already thought out. In brief, when the NPC is not just a generic NPC, but an individual whose distinctive traits will matter . . . a guest star, not an extra . . . and when I want to think about those traits ahead of time.

Sure, I could translate a prose description into game stats. But it might be a puzzle how to do so, for complex ones. And even for simple ones, since I'm going to end up with game stats anyway when I want to use the character in play, why not use the game stats as the descriptive language instead of using narrative prose and then having to translate it on the fly?

Figuring the total character points strikes me as pretty trivial; it's just arithmetic, and I do arithmetic to relax.

I don't think you took my comparison to writing a sonnet seriously. But I meant it seriously. You could ask a poet, "Why do you go to all the trouble of coming up with rhyme and meter and figurative language, when you could just say what you mean in prose, and turn it into verse later if you need to?" But I don't think any poet works that way. The shortest, simplest possible summary of a poem is the poem itself; and it's written in a peculiar, almost trancelike state of concentration in which the constraints of the poetic form work simultaneously with the choice of content. When I wrote

I am the demon that your love demands
Drinker of blood and wanderer of night

the quatrain rhyme scheme required a third line ending in -ands and a fourth in -ight or -ite, each with five iambic feet, and that limited my choice of possible words, which led to my coming up with

I make your body sound beneath my hands
The silent music of my hidden rite

which is figurative, containing the intentional paradox of sound/silent and the trope of hidden rite, and could almost certainly not be stated in literal language without going to much greater length. The compressed wording takes much more work to achieve, but it's also much more effective in conveying the intended meaning and in making it memorable. And it's not attained by first coming up with an expanded meaning and then compressing it, but by working in the compressed form to start with.

Now, I don't claim that a sonnet and a character sheet are the same kind of thing. But I do feel that they are similar in this one dimension: working directly in the compressed form can be a way of organizing and focusing one's thoughts. And it's one that works for me. If it doesn't for you, that's fine, but your experience is a personal and not a universal truth.

Bill Stoddard

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

It is recommended that GMs shouldn't bother to assign stats before game beyond what is likely going to be required for any NPC to fulfill its expected role, unless they have plenty of free time and enjoy the statting process.

This is the point where I think your wording could lead a reader astray.

What is an NPC's "expected role"? I think there are two aspects to this: A narrow one and a wide one. The narrow one is, "This is a person who does X. The PCs are going to interact with them when they're doing X. All that you need to know about them is that they do X, and how well." And you can almost certainly make that up on the fly; almost any experienced GM (that is, anyone who has actually GMed, rather than just spent months "gettting ready" to GM) has done so many times.

The wide one is, "This is a person who is going to interact with the PCs over a sustained timespan, or is likely to do so. The PCs will see many different traits of theirs, and it's not possible to predict in advance which ones will be important, or what those interactions will be, or how long the interaction will continue." To be ready for that, you are going to need a fully developed character concept, including a bunch of different traits . . . and while you can come up with a plausible individual trait, as you come up with more traits, it gets steadily harder to make sure they form a coherent whole. Doing a character sheet is helpful in making this sure . . . and for a recurrent NPC the overhead cost of design is spread over many more play sessions.

Besides, when I do a full character sheet, I can put in easter eggs and have the pleasure of waiting to see if the PCs find them. Or booby traps.

Your wording does not actually preclude this. But if read hastily, it could sound as if it did, and thereby could lead a GM astray, into making their settings duller than necessary, and putting too little work into imagining them.

Bill Stoddard