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

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

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

;p

Heheheh interestingly enough, Im convinced if she had, it wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

ALOT got worked out in this thread on varying levels. Im convinced that means that alot NEEDED to be worked out.

If someone would have told me a week ago that an NPC stat thread would run 500 plus and be THIS revealing, Ida never believed it.

If they would have told me that I was scrolling up responses 2 and three at a time on the topic, i would have told them they were full of fertilizer.

Nymdok

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by whswhs

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.

I don't see it as cost-cutting. I see it as a better use of my time. For three years, at work, one of my collegues had done a weekly report that took him all week to process. The first time I had to do it I was appaled at the amount of useless work that went into it, so I quickly came up with a better, more efficient way to process it. The report went from taking five days to taking three hours. With further refining, it only takes about one hour now. The data is still processed correctly and we now have more time to get other work done.

I, recently at work, brutalized a process that had 24 steps down to 6. Now, it's both faster and more accurate since I've removed a dozen steps that could lead to false-positives.

That's not cost-cutting, that's improving efficiency, and that's what I'm advocating. Cost-cutting is bad, I agree. But, increasing efficiency is good. I'm not saying that your employee has to bring their own broom from home to sweep up the store, I'm saying that the store should buy a broom instead of making the employee make a new broom, from scratch, every time they need to sweep (my grandmother used to make brooms, it's a long, tedoius process).

I'm an inherently lazy person who wants their work to be top-quality. If the only way to do something is through a 48-step-process, I'll buckle down and do it that way. But, if I can find a more-efficient 24-step-process that produces the same, if not better, results, I'm going to use it. And if I can batter those 24-steps down . . ..

I'm looking at it as "statting everything isn't going to increase the fun for the game." So, instead, I figure out what does make the game fun and spend most of my time working on that. That's not to say that I don't stat things out, just that it's not my first goal.

Originally Posted by whswhs

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.

I'm not a big fan of pre-gen adventures. Don't get me wrong, they're fun to read, and they've given me a lot great ideas for games, but I haven't run a "module" since I stopped playing D&D.

Originally Posted by whswhs

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.

And, if I were putting something together, for another person to run, I'd probably also provide them. Because I don't know the skills or abilities of the person running the game, not because I felt they were supremely necessary.

Originally Posted by whswhs

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

Bill, at no point do I think that your process doesn't work for you. But it doesn't work for everyone. And I know you know that. Most of us who are in the "wing-it" camp know that. We're not saying that you can't do it your way, but we're trying to tell people that you don't have to do it your way.

Right now, I have GCA up, it's been up for three days with the same character, because I have a major NPC being built and I'm at a creative roadblock. I don't know what other traits he needs. So, I'm waiting for inspiration. The only reason he's being built in GCA, is that I'm considering his power set an thought experiment and want to see how to built it.

As for rhymed iambic pentameter . . . I wrote a ballad once, in high school for a class, and got extra credit for having it all in rhymed iambic pentameter . . . that was an accident. I never planned on that, it just happened.

Originally Posted by Archangel Beth

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.)"

Have I told you, lately, that I love you. That's awesome and it's beautiful. And it sums up my belief in gaming.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Archangel Beth

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.

This might be a source of some of the assumption clash here.

I don't agree with this. I don't understand how anyone can agree with this. This, to me, is the equivalent of writing 'the fish is the water and the water is the fish'. It makes no sense to me, at all, on any level.

There have been five, or four depending on how you reckon it, editions of the D&D game. If we were to take an NPC that has been present in one of their campaign worlds for the majority of these, there is no doubt that we could find four or five different stat write-ups. Nonetheless, the character remains the same. All that changes is the language used to describe him.

If it's any more familar, let's look at Star Wars. Star Wars d6, Star Wars d20, Star Wars Saga; there's a lot of systems. I'm betting all of them stat Han Solo. But the stats given in each case are just some designer's best guess. Han Solo is not those stats. Han Solo is Han Solo.

When I describe a character, any character, I do so in the same way. With words and sentences. Sometimes I'll compare him to things from the real world, sometimes to other things within his world. This applies to fictional characters as well as real persons. My descriptions and the way I think of them are narrative, i.e. they explain how they fit into their world.

When I have to describe a person I just met to someone who doesn't know her, I don't think first of giving her game stats in some system. The same applies to a fictional character, even one in a game. My initial thought is never to describe the character in terms of gamist conventions. I'll describe the character like I'd describe any other person.

The stats are a convenient device for representing a character in terms that the game engine that allows for task resolution in the game world will recognise. That's all they are.

James Bond remains James Bond whether we're watching him on a plasma screen or a tube television set. The mechanism that allows us to experience the character has nothing to do with the nature of that character in any way.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

Bill, at no point do I think that your process doesn't work for you. But it doesn't work for everyone. And I know you know that. Most of us who are in the "wing-it" camp know that. We're not saying that you can't do it your way, but we're trying to tell people that you don't have to do it your way.

Yeah, but I imagine the reverse is true too. I haven't read enough of this thread to be sure, but I'm certainly not trying to tell anyone that my way is the only way. I've seen people use tarot cards, or "come up with five adjectives," or simply straight brainstorming. There's lots of methods that work, though I will point out that writing up character stats has the added bonus of supplying you with something useful in your game.

Some people need help. Some people can't wing it. Some people just stare at a black piece of paper, or blank when someone asks them to come up with an NPC. Having a system to help you develop an NPC is something that I like to call "Figuring out what you already know," teasing out the archtypes and ideas that already exist in your head that you're having trouble accessing currently.

Consider my big monster thread from awhile back. Alot of people said "Wow, this is genius, you should submit this to e23!" but I'm betting you and Zorg and several others thought "But I don't need this, I come up with neat monsters all the time." And that's true. I do too. And really, there's nothing there that isn't obvious: Take a racial template from a book, slap some skills on it. Those skills might be combat oriented, stealthy, tricky, or magical, and there you go. But writing this out explicitly, showing people how it worked, resulted in several people (Bruno being one) instantly developing several monsters. It helped guide their thought processes to concepts they already had, but didn't know about yet.

To my eye, Bill's point is not saying that his way is the one true way, but that statting up everything does, in fact, serve a purpose. It provides you with consistent characters, it forces you to think your way through a character in detail, and it often helps inspire ideas that might not have happened otherwise. If you don't need these things, and many of you don't, or if you have other methods you prefer, and many of you do, then it's not important, but "There's no point to statting up anything but the PCs" isn't so. There is, in fact, a point.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I don't agree with this. I don't understand how anyone can agree with this. This, to me, is the equivalent of writing 'the fish is the water and the water is the fish'. It makes no sense to me, at all, on any level.

Actually, all I could think of is "The worm is the spice; the spice is the worm!" And then I screamed.

As for the rest of your post, I agree. Ekaterina Lynne isn't a series of numbers and words on a piece of paper. She's not even that picture I use for her. She's an idea in my head.

And, Mailanka, you are correct. I would never try to tell someone that they shouldn't do it the way they're comfortable with, but I am going to tell them that they don't have to do it that way, if they don't want to.

I get Bill's point, and yours. I guess I haven't been terribly clear about that. I apologize. If you have a process/procedure that works for you, don't worry about changing it. But, if you're new, and you can't figure out how to do something, don't sweat the small stuff.

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I don't agree with this. I don't understand how anyone can agree with this.
....
The stats are a convenient device for representing a character in terms that the game engine that allows for task resolution in the game world will recognise. That's all they are.

You answer yourself here I think.

How those NPCs connect to the Story and therefor the PCs are really the game relevant bits. Once that is in line and mechanically working, what you stretch over it is largely Facade. Accents, attitude, affectations and the host of little bits that matter but arent game relevant mechanically get carried over with no translation simply because no translation is needed.

Ive not played any of those Star Wars games for example, but if the system and rules change the stats for Han Solo pretty much have to for the character to be gameably relevant to that system I would think.

Nohting wrong with Building them from the 'outside in' as you do it. You come up with an idea then install the game mechanical supports to prop em up.

Im a fan of 'inside out' building myself for Major NPCs. Think about what the plot needs. Get those SKills/Ads/Dissads in order then some backstory and distinguishing features to help em stand out.

Its worth noting that you could also build em Russian Nested Doll style as Mailanka did in a thread a few weeks back where you start with a core, then overlay stuff on top of it in the GURPS familiar Template/Lens mechanic. He uses it here for monsters, but I see no reason why you couldnt do it for other NPCs.

Spy->MI6 SPY->00 MI6 Spy->James Bond

Nymdok

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Consider my big monster thread from awhile back. Alot of people said "Wow, this is genius, you should submit this to e23!" but I'm betting you and Zorg and several others thought "But I don't need this, I come up with neat monsters all the time." And that's true. I do too. And really, there's nothing there that isn't obvious: Take a racial template from a book, slap some skills on it. Those skills might be combat oriented, stealthy, tricky, or magical, and there you go. But writing this out explicitly, showing people how it worked, resulted in several people (Bruno being one) instantly developing several monsters. It helped guide their thought processes to concepts they already had, but didn't know about yet.

I think I missed that thread . . .. Was it about DF or Fantasy? I just don't go into those threads.
[edit]Ah, yes, I see; thank you for the link Nymdok. It was listed as [DF]. As I am anti-fantasy I avoid those threads. I will take a look later.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

To my eye, Bill's point is not saying that his way is the one true way, but that statting up everything does, in fact, serve a purpose. It provides you with consistent characters, it forces you to think your way through a character in detail, and it often helps inspire ideas that might not have happened otherwise. If you don't need these things, and many of you don't, or if you have other methods you prefer, and many of you do, then it's not important, but "There's no point to statting up anything but the PCs" isn't so. There is, in fact, a point.

See, I understand your point, but you're still not quite correct.

There is a point to you. There is not much of a point to me. No one in the "wing-it" camp would ever tell you "you should never stat anything that isn't a PC up." That's not our belief. For my Amnesia game, Sam, the gun-guy, never had anything more than a name (Sam) and a note (mix Sam with Burt Gummer; Sam was an old retired Navy Seal buddy of mine; I was never a Seal, just him) and I knew everything I wanted to know about him. He was the most important NPC in the game. He never needed stats, he was all about story telling.

Having a character sheet for Sam wouldn't have changed the game one whit. It wasn't necessary. For the Space Game, only one of the three major NPCs had character sheets because I knew that one was going to die (the lawyer) and the other (Molly) was going to "switch sides." So, only Charles has a character sheet. Only rough information (the lawyer was a good lawyer and he was kinda greasy; Molly was hawt but quiet) was really needed for the other two. The lawyer was actually very useful to the party as he helped with some of their legal issues, but he never needed a sheet.

[edit, again]
And if you go to the original statement, which has been linked to before, you'll see that "There's no point to statting up anything but the PC's" isn't a factual statement. It's a strawman created by jeff_wilson. In and of itself, you are correct that the statement is invalid, however, that statement is also not something that has ever been said by anyone in the wing-it camp.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

I think I missed that thread . . .. Was it about DF or Fantasy? I just don't go into those threads.
[edit]Ah, yes, I see; thank you for the link Nymdok. It was listed as [DF]. As I am anti-fantasy I avoid those threads. I will take a look later.

I'm still struggling with my space opera monsters. Once I get that worked out, I'll be sure to share that too.

There is a point to you. There is not much of a point to me. No one in the "wing-it" camp would ever tell you "you should never stat anything that isn't a PC up." That's not our belief.

It's the title to the thread and the topic of the thread from the original post. Those who are supporting statting NPCs are arguing against that sentiment, not against your sentiment.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

It's the title to the thread and the topic of the thread from the original post. Those who are supporting statting NPCs are arguing against that sentiment, not against your sentiment.

Actually, it isn't. The original sentiment is "don't do more work than you have to." The title to the thread is a straw man created by jeff_wilson to make the wing-it camp look foolish. We're not standing for it. I think everyone in the wing-it camp (except Ze' maybe) would agree that you should stat up as much as you feel you need. But you should never feel that you have to stat everything that you might need.

Again, your arguement against jeff_wilson's strawman is accurate in that, no, there is a need to stat things up besides the PCs, however, the original statement was that you don't have to stat anything up other than the information you'll need in the game. And you don't have to adhere to the character generation rules to get that information.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

Actually, it isn't. The original sentiment is "don't do more work than you have to." The title to the thread is a straw man created by jeff_wilson to make the wing-it camp look foolish. We're not standing for it. I think everyone in the wing-it camp (except Ze' maybe) would agree that you should stat up as much as you feel you need. But you should never feel that you have to stat everything that you might need.

Again, your arguement against jeff_wilson's strawman is accurate in that, no, there is a need to stat things up besides the PCs, however, the original statement was that you don't have to stat anything up other than the information you'll need in the game. And you don't have to adhere to the character generation rules to get that information.

Ah, I understand your point better. And you're certainly right, "don't do more work than you have to" is very good. Especially for GURPS, where newbs often ask how to stat up some improbable monster's power ("How many points would it cost to make a djinni that can grant three wishes?" Uhhh don't worry about the point cost, just allow him to exist)