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

[whswhs]

At this point, I have three related things to say:

1. A lot of this discussion has been about minimizing the costs of gaming, where "cost" is in the form of time that might be spent doing something else. But I look at gaming entrepreneurially. When a business starts focusing on cutting costs, it's already on the way down, and cutting costs probably won't save it. The proper entrepreneurial goal is to make sales, and to willingly pay whatever costs are required to enhance net sales. Obviously you don't want to pay unnecessary costs . . . but any costs that result in better performance are not unnecessary.

2. We've been hearing a lot about the needs of neos. Well, when I look at the comments on these boards, one of the recurring complaints about GURPS is that it doesn't provide premade adventures and campaigns. And what would such an adventure have? A detailed setting, a set of goals, a set of paths for reaching them . . . and stats for NPCs that the PCs would interact with while seeking the goals! That is, a lot of new GMs actively want NPC stats. Telling them "Just wing it" isn't any help; it doesn't provide them with stats, and it doesn't enable them to make the on-the-fly judgments of what stats are appropriate that a GM with a decade or two of experience in designing characters and running scenarios finds easy.

And if you look at the better adventure books from other publishers, you'll find that, in fact, they do provide full character sheets for the important NPCs, standard "guard" and "barmaid" sheets for the unimportant categories, and abbreviated notation for the equivalent of Contacts, Patrons, critters, and the like.

3. Mailanka's example of designing a tavern wench is exactly the sort of process I would go through.

Bill Stoddard

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by copeab

Ah, then statting makes more sense for you given the long gaps. Your adventures are like movies, mine are like a serial TV series.

Yes! And sometimes it feels like an epic trilogy! I dont mind telling you, after the second or third 12 hour session, Im ready for a 3 month break to recharge! Which usually means about 3 weeks to recharge, then its back to Plot, Problems, Players and then of course....game balancing :)

Nymdok

[Archangel Beth]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I do a full character sheet, when I do, because it gives me aesthetic gratification, and because my feeling of aesthetic gratification is what guides my creativity.

It just occurred to me... That's a key point on when someone should be advised to wing it, vs statting things up.

When, for that person, statting something up totally does not give aesthetic gratification, and does not guide creativity.

Someone who sees statting things up as a chore, or who feels stifled by the "requirement" to do so, should always and every time be given the short-cuts around statting things up. Peel back the curtain, and show how you only need to pick, and write down, the truly necessary parts. (Parts that an experienced statter may automatically stat instinctively!)

The trick is to figure out how much statting will help that GM. E.g., I was stuck on writing something till I went and found a coast-line, modified it a little to suit my whims, and plonked my city at a point on it. I was stuck for writing a couple of other scenes till I went online, found floorplans, made a few modifications, and then -- with something in my head that I wasn't getting from my headguts themselves -- I was able to write! (And pretty vaguely; I am fairly sure that I didn't over-describe.)

But I don't need to know the whole world for that book, or where the major continents are, or what the major political divisions are over in the old empire, etc. So if I were trying to come up with an entire world before setting pen to paper (well, fingers to keyboard), then I'd never get writing. Now that I have some assumptions, when it becomes necessary? (And it will...) I'll have some structure that I'll have to justify; I've established that X is true, so that implies Y, and this other thing implies Z but I don't like Z so I'm going to have to figure out how to get Q instead...

New GMs complaining about stats being too complicated probably need first the "you only have to write down the relevant parts -- if you want to figure out how it works, do so to the extent that you feel is fun" speech. Then one can go into the "and here's some ways you can stat it up if you want" advice. Someone asking how to stat up X, without enough cues to tell if they like statting or not, can probably get a one-liner, "As you know, Bob, you can always just write down the effects," before launching into the suggestions.

(Another key point is when statting something up promotes over-identification with the NPC in question, to the detriment of the game.)

[Archangel Beth]

Originally Posted by Icelander

So, for me (and before I heard Bruno said that some people weren't wired that way, I thought it went for everyone), it's not a choice between statting people up in game terms or describing them narratively.

I actually design characters -- usually PCs, but sometimes NPCs -- by statting them. I start with a vague concept, and as I work out what that concept requires and where I'm going to make it more unique... the options I choose sharpen and define the character.

Statting up something narratively and then going and doing them in game-mechanics feels like... I dunno, artificially separating out the process. The stat is the character, and the character is the stat.

On the the other hand, I can totally come up with a vague sense of stats off the top of my head, if I know the game system, and can therefore wing stuff pretty quickly. If a throwaway character becomes important, I can work with what I established on the fly. I'm not paralyzed if I don't have something pre-statted.

And I totally understand whswhs's "sonnet" description. The form is structure, the art is in what you do within that structure, the implications of a character emerge in a black-box interaction between the stats and the concept, and create a sharper image to work from.

[Anders]

Now, now, Beth. Being reasonable never solved anything on the Internet... :)

[Archangel Beth]

I've got a Quirk about trying. >_>



(And I realized that a neo-GM, feeling overwhelmed, should probably also get a few words about why minimal statting can work, and which stats are the operative ones. E.g., "a minor NPC who becomes important can be statted up after the fact; if you go with average stats, and an average level (about 12) in their obvious skill (merchants have Merchant, etc.), you will be doing fine, and you can get fancier as you get more comfortable." And "a major power with lots of fancy fiddly bits... is not necessarily going to need to be within a certain point range. Write down the power, write down the fiddly bits, and figure out if it's going to be game-killing -- does it allow the PCs to have a reasonable chance of defeating that NPC? If it's not going to overwhelm them, then that consistent description is probably all you need, and statting it out is gravy for if you find it emotionally or intellectually satisfying."

The goal being to encourage the neoGM. "You can do this! You don't have to do the parts that are hard for you! Here are shortcuts! (And if you find you like doing some stuff, that works too.)"

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Archangel Beth

I've got a Quirk about trying. >_>



(And I realized that a neo-GM, feeling overwhelmed, should probably also get a few words about why minimal statting can work, and which stats are the operative ones. E.g., "a minor NPC who becomes important can be statted up after the fact; if you go with average stats, and an average level (about 12) in their obvious skill (merchants have Merchant, etc.), you will be doing fine, and you can get fancier as you get more comfortable." And "a major power with lots of fancy fiddly bits... is not necessarily going to need to be within a certain point range. Write down the power, write down the fiddly bits, and figure out if it's going to be game-killing -- does it allow the PCs to have a reasonable chance of defeating that NPC? If it's not going to overwhelm them, then that consistent description is probably all you need, and statting it out is gravy for if you find it emotionally or intellectually satisfying."

The goal being to encourage the neoGM. "You can do this! You don't have to do the parts that are hard for you! Here are shortcuts! (And if you find you like doing some stuff, that works too.)"

Good thing you didn't post something like this 500 posts ago, we wouldn't have had anywhere near this much fun...

;p

[copeab]

Great. I see "neo-GM'" and I keep thinking things like:

GM: <rolls dice> ... whoa! That is most heinous, Mr. Smith!

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't object to hairsplitting as such (obviously!), but I can't even see the hair you're trying to split here.

The difference is between "No merchant in my game ever gets a stat beyond Merchant skill" and "A random Merchant I need gets Merchant-12; if it becomes more important I'll flesh him out later."

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by copeab

Great. I see "neo-GM'" and I keep thinking things like:

GM: <rolls dice> ... whoa! That is most heinous, Mr. Smith!

<Rolls his mook's karate skill, critically succeeding> ... I know Kung Fu.