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

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Icelander

This is something you've referred to before and continues to bother me.

Why should it be so? What's so implausible about a state of affairs in which leaders occasionally have abilities which are less desireable from the point of view of a typical player in a generic 'adventure'* than the abilities of soldiers lower down in the social order?

I'm assuming a context of small team combat, where the "leader" is more or less the equivalent of an optio or sergeant. That is, he's someone who started out as a common soldier, but (a) is more experienced than the other squad members, (b) has gained higher abilities through that experience, and (c) got promoted on that account.

On the Heliobia, for example, the cabin boy/girl are children who are going to have lower stats than most adults, and have relatively limited maritime experience. The sailors range from landlubbers to old salts, but I'm willing to treat them as having a certain average competence; the gunners are experienced sailors, a bit brighter than average, who got promoted to gunner after serving on a gun crew as common sailoers; the marines have some of the skills of sailors, though not all, and have intensively combat training.

In a different situation, I might use different relative values.

Bill Stoddard

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Before anything else, I usually do full character sheets for one or several significant NPCs. This helps me get a sense for how many points will give characters with suitable abilities and traits. This is especially useful if I'm running an engine I haven't tried before. It also helps me think out what traits I want in the campaign and what traits I don't.

I can understand this. If this is the way your mind works, go for it. I usually play with the character construction rules, but I don't worry about making specific NPCs.

Originally Posted by whswhs

In the course of PC creation, players may pick Allies or other related characters. I do full character sheets for Allies, and for individual Patrons and Enemies, and sometimes for Dependents, if I'm going to be rolling against their traits; the point values let me check that they actually have the right point cost for what the player spent on them, and the exactly specified abilities are useful if they come into combat. For Contacts, I only define one skill, which is an "effective" skill and may not be the character's actual point value; for Patrons and Enemies, I may never figure a character sheet at all.

In my games, Allies and Dependents get full character sheets. Mostly for the reasons you list above.

Originally Posted by whswhs

When I run a scenario, I typically stat up from one to three major NPCs fully. I don't necessarily care how many points they cost, but for personal aesthetic taste I tend to round the total points for the traits they really need up to a value that's a simple whole number ratio of the PC cost, and spend a few points on minor goodies.

Depending on the game, I may or may not bother statting major NPCs. Usually, I'll stat the most important ones, and leave the others to a general idea of what they're there for.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I do generic character sheets for classes of characters that will turn up repeatedly: a generic tracker or warrior orc, a generic sailor or marine. Usually these are people who will come into combat; I want to know what they're capable of in exact statistics. I also probably want to check that leaders cost more than soldiers and soldiers cost more than trackers, or whatever. I probably will reuse these generic sheets repeatedly.

Aha! Here's where all of our logical disconnects occur.

I can see the usefulness of what your doing. And as far as this goes, this is a very good way to do it. I just don't have the need to do this. Much like trooper6, I know the averages for the game I'm playing. I worry more that the neo-GMs don't look to do generic character sheets, and think that everyone has to be unique. And that's where we need to help them.

Originally Posted by whswhs

For a lot of other encounters during a session, I make up a name, a quick description, and maybe a stat or skill or two on the fly. These people can be the majority of those who appear in a given session. They don't have to be weak characters; they may be immensely powerful ones whom the PCs aren't going to challenge to a fight.

Spot on with you.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I've done the very same thing occasionally. But I used the word "chronically" by design.

Bill, I apologize. I totally missed that.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm assuming a context of small team combat, where the "leader" is more or less the equivalent of an optio or sergeant. That is, he's someone who started out as a common soldier, but (a) is more experienced than the other squad members, (b) has gained higher abilities through that experience, and (c) got promoted on that account.

Quite apart from the fact that this does not apply universally or even all that often, this only suggests that those skills and attributes (mostly skills, one assumes) directly related to the profession would be higher. The total point value might well vary enormously.

As an example, I statted out some orcs as an intellectual exercise. I found that the scouts/longbowmen were often higher in point value than the sergeants/bosses. My reaction to that piece of information? None.

All it tells me is that the skill and ability set that an orc archer has are more desirable for a PC than the skill and ability set of an orc sergeant. The sergeant is still a much better sergeant (and melee combatant, incidentally) while the archer is a better archer.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

If you can show me where I said character point totals alone were sufficient to judge this sort of thing, I will apologize for misleading you.

I gather you don't think it has ever been appropriate to post something along the lines of "You don't need CPs for that". Since a decent amount of the time it has been in response to a request on how to use CPs as a sort of Challenge Rating, I'm now fairly confused as to what you think on the subject.

I'd be interested to see how you'd answer the following (hypothetical) questions:

1. My campaign world was created by Omnius, god of everything. How do I build his ability to create the universe?
2. GURPS is too hard to GM! It takes too long to make all the NPCs and monsters as characters. Is there a faster way?
3. My group's 4 250 point PCs was just slaughtered by 3 50 point guys. What are we doing wrong?

EDIT:

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

If you have CP totals, then you have finalized the costs and the values necessary for play for all the character's abilities individually, so that you have specific values to compare with other relevant, specific values from other finalized characters with the confidence that someone took the time to go over each item and verified it was supposed to be there.

Why can't you do this with a creature style stat block?

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by Icelander

As an example, I statted out some orcs as an intellectual exercise. I found that the scouts/longbowmen were often higher in point value than the sergeants/bosses. My reaction to that piece of information? None.

All it tells me is that the skill and ability set that an orc archer has are more desirable for a PC than the skill and ability set of an orc sergeant. The sergeant is still a much better sergeant (and melee combatant, incidentally) while the archer is a better archer.

It also, in an indirect manner, tells you that your sergeants/bosses either a) did not start out as scouts/archers or b) allowed their scouting/archery abilities to atrophy significantly after becoming sergeants. You could also see this from simply looking at the stats, of course, and looking at the stats would inform you precisely what the group B sergeants allowed to atrophy (and to what extent). This is one of the reasons I don't bother with points, but the rapidity with which one can look at two orc statblocks and determine this fact from points alone is much greater than one could determine it by actually looking at the stats. Noticing this might even give you inspiration for something you may not have considered before - say, a sergeant who did start as a scout and retains his old skills.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

It also, in an indirect manner, tells you that your sergeants/bosses either a) did not start out as scouts/archers or b) allowed their scouting/archery abilities to atrophy significantly after becoming sergeants. You could also see this from simply looking at the stats, of course, and looking at the stats would inform you precisely what the group B sergeants allowed to atrophy (and to what extent). This is one of the reasons I don't bother with points, but the rapidity with which one can look at two orc statblocks and determine this fact from points alone is much greater than one could determine it by actually looking at the stats. Noticing this might even give you inspiration for something you may not have considered before - say, a sergeant who did start as a scout and retains his old skills.

They rarely, if ever, start out as scouts or archers.

But I know that before I statted, not after it. This is because of a cultural predisposition in orcish society that esteems close combat and performance in 'the crush' (the shieldwall) and tends to look down on archers as skilled hunters and thus valuable to the tribe, but not proper warriors.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Icelander

But I know that before I statted, not after it. This is because of a cultural predisposition in orcish society that esteems close combat and performance in 'the crush' (the shieldwall) and tends to look down on archers as skilled hunters and thus valuable to the tribe, but not proper warriors.

Well, that's your model of orcish society. I'm not recommending that you make that comparison in every case; only when it's appropriate.

Bill Stoddard

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, that's your model of orcish society. I'm not recommending that you make that comparison in every case; only when it's appropriate.

My point is that it is so rarely appropriate.

It is only appropriate when the characters involved have no significant skills or traits which do not relate to their profession. In my experience, that describes few people in the real world and I aim to have it describe only those fantasy people who are monomaniacs or otherwise incapable of having a life outside their jobs.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It is only appropriate when the characters involved have no significant skills or traits which do not relate to their profession. In my experience, that describes few people in the real world and I aim to have it describe only those fantasy people who are monomaniacs or otherwise incapable of having a life outside their jobs.

So?

I'm using this to write up NPCs whose function is to take part in combat, or to support combat forces. They are the equivalent of the nameless Greek and Trojan soldiers in Homer, or the crowd of common soldiers in Zorro or The Three Musketeers, or the cops or security guards who show up in TV series. They're what dramaturgists classically call "spear carriers." It's not for nothing that one of my examples was orcs. Those character sheets aren't intended to be complete portraits of individuals with distinctive lives and motives; they're statistical averages.

If I want to individualize such a character, the generic template will include a line entry for "Hobby Skill-N [2]" or "Quirk TBD [-1]."

Here you are arguing that it's not necessary to do complete NPC character sheets, and yet when I describe using a generic character sheet to define the typical combat abilities of members of various groups of combatants you object because they aren't individualized enough. What's up with that, huh?

Bill Stoddard

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

I can see the usefulness of what your doing. And as far as this goes, this is a very good way to do it. I just don't have the need to do this. Much like trooper6, I know the averages for the game I'm playing. I worry more that the neo-GMs don't look to do generic character sheets, and think that everyone has to be unique. And that's where we need to help them.

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.

Bill Stoddard