Caravan to Ein Arris question (spoilers, minor, I suppose)

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by phayman53

Is the fact that it was originally a 3E book the reason some of the enemy skills are so high? Mook bandits have 15s and 16s in their combat skills and the bandit "toll collectors" have a ride skill of 18! Those are awfully high to take on with a set of 125 point characters that need to be somewhat well rounded between combat and non-combat skills, especially when the opponents outnumber you. I never played 3E, but I thought I recalled reading that skills tended to be higher.

FWIW in 3e it cost 60 pts to get DX 15, in 4e that's 100pts. 4 pts in a P/A (3e) weapon skill gets you skill level 16.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by phayman53

Compare that with official templates in the 150 point range for combat focused characters

Why? Templates are not a simulation of what being a fighter (or anything else) is supposed to be like, and there is no reason to expect that the player characters are supposed to be better than them at fighting, or even equal.

But you pretty much need a dedicated fighter to match or exceed these mooks

They're not mooks! There are no mooks in this adventure. This adventure presents opponents whom the players are supposed to deal with as dangerous individuals.

This is especially problematic in the final fight, where the PCs are specifically supposed to be outnumbered.

And in which the PCs' orders are simply "guard Riana." The PCs are in a strong defensive position. There is only one more attacker than everyone on the PCs' side. They simply don't have to stand in the middle of the room, hacking away at each other.

This is also, as you point out, the final battle of the adventure. The stakes need to be high. Success is not supposed to be guaranteed.

but why are all of the mooks master level horsemen as well as expert level swordsmen?

Because they're not mooks; they're desert thieves who are master horsemen and expert swordsmen.

This is not a cinematic, breezy swashbuckling adventure. This is not an adventure in which you run your sword through hordes of faceless adversaries, hardly breaking a sweat, and delivering a hard-nosed quip at the end. Those are the tropes that GURPS was trying to get away from when this adventure was written. This adventure is meant to be as detailed in its plot and characters as it is in its skill system and weapon stats.

[tanksoldier]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

.So really, this encounter isn't automatically the doom of the PC .

...but it implies something about the game world the encounter is set in. ALL the people the PCs bump into have combat and riding skill equal to or above what 125 point players are likely to have... don’t forget the party can’t just be combat focused, there are a LOT of other social and wilderness skills required... and 125 points should make them above average.

Are these NPCs average fighters for that world, or did the players happen to stumble on all the world’s combat masters in one adventure?

...or are 125 point characters BELOW average for this world?

[Stormcrow]

Yes, all of the people the PCs bump into who use force and speed to make a living have really good skills for fighting and riding. You'd kind of expect them to. Why is this a problem?

Yes, a 125-point character who tries to be good at every skill that might be needed in the adventure won't be as good as a specialist character. Why is this a problem?

Yes, standing toe to toe in this adventure is a very dangerous proposition for the PCs. Which is exactly what the NPCs are counting on, or else they wouldn't be there to fight. Why is this a problem?

Fighters I, II, and III aren't supposed to be a measure of "average"; they're just "generic." "Generic" doesn't mean "mook"; it means "can be used over and over in different contexts without redesigning them." Fighters I, II, and III are dangerous individuals on purpose. They're not "Townsperson I, II, and III" or "Desert Dweller I, II, and III."

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Why? Templates are not a simulation of what being a fighter (or anything else) is supposed to be like, and there is no reason to expect that the player characters are supposed to be better than them at fighting, or even equal.

My point was not that it was a simulation, my point is that there is consistency in 4E official templates about what sort of skill levels one can expect at different point ranges. There is also consistency about average opponents. Your typical "non-boss" but worthy adversary seems to have a skill level of about 14, while bosses typically seem to be in the 15-16 range for 150 point games (I have not exhaustively looked at this, but that is my impression from the resources I own). Caravan to Ein Arris seems to depart from this quite remarkably.

An example of this is the stats for PCs and opponents in the After the End series. After the End is not supposed to be a swashbuckling adventure where you cut down hordes of mooks (unless you are fighting slow zombies), combat is supposed to be risky. Skills for combat on the 150 point combat focused PC templates (Hulk, Hunter, and Trooper) tend to top out at 15 or 16, with most others templates that are supposed to be competent at (but not focused on) combat have their combat skills in the 14 range. Non-combat focused characters are in the 11-12 range. Combat skills for worthy opponents in the gangs (O.G.s) and officers in paramilitary groups are about 14. Bosses are the ones who have skills in the 16 range. This leads to relatively even fights, with the combat focused PCs definitely having an advantage, but less combat focused characters being equal or at a disadvantage.

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

They're not mooks! There are no mooks in this adventure. This adventure presents opponents whom the players are supposed to deal with as dangerous individuals.

...

Because they're not mooks; they're desert thieves who are master horsemen and expert swordsmen.

This is not a cinematic, breezy swashbuckling adventure. This is not an adventure in which you run your sword through hordes of faceless adversaries, hardly breaking a sweat, and delivering a hard-nosed quip at the end. Those are the tropes that GURPS was trying to get away from when this adventure was written. This adventure is meant to be as detailed in its plot and characters as it is in its skill system and weapon stats.

I used the wrong word when I used "mook". I should have said typical opponent that is not given a personality. My point was that it seems like everyone in the game world is more skilled than the PCs at everything that counts in combat. This strikes me as unusual given that the PCs are trusted by their experienced leaders to undertake dangerous missions and be guards. If the typical desert bandit is an expert swordsman and a master horseman, shouldn't the experienced caravan leaders give dangerous missions to people of similar skill? Why are they choosing to trust the PCs when they do not know them nor do they have the skills to match the hostiles they are likely to encounter?

I am not after changing it into a "breezy swashbuckling adventure". I am not saying the hostile NPCs should be significantly less skilled than the PCs so that the PCs can cut through hordes of them. But, at 125 points it is hard to get a PC even equal in skill to these opponents without making them completely focused on fighting (which the campaign seems to discourage given the variety of skills everyone needs). I just think either the point value needs to be higher to justify the leaders of the largest merchant guild trusting the PCs with these missions or the typical opponent needs to be less skilled so that it makes sense for 125 point PCs to be given the missions they are given.

As others have pointed out, in previous editions of GURPS it would have been much easier to get equally or more skilled PCs to the opponents one faces in Caravan to Ein Arris. I always thought it was strange how skilled the NPCs in the game were and that it seemed like it would be difficult to make PCs who live up to expectations on 125 points. I was not aware that it was originally written for earlier editions and that fact makes the relative skills of the opponents make more sense to me.

That said, I really like the adventure and have GM'ed it once. It was interesting to run and the players, many of whom were new to RPGs and all were new to GURPS, had fun. But I did give everyone a higher starting point total and lowered the NPC bandits stats some. It worked out pretty well, though for the last fight I think I had 6 PCs and things were a bit crazy (extra people joined the game part way in).

[tanksoldier]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Yes, all of the people the PCs bump into who use force and speed to make a living have really good skills for fighting and riding. You'd kind of expect them to. Why is this a problem?

...because the PCs fit the same description and aren’t equally good.

Yes, a 125-point character who tries to be good at every skill that might be needed in the adventure won't be as good as a specialist character. Why is this a problem?

...because the NPCs have to do other things in life just like the PCs and haven’t spent any points on that. ALL they can do is swing a sword and ride? No desert survival? No land navigation? If the NPCs were fully developed they’d be 250 point characters.

Yes, standing toe to toe in this adventure is a very dangerous proposition for the PCs. Which is exactly what the NPCs are counting on, or else they wouldn't be there to fight. Why is this a problem?

....because it isn’t equally dangerous for the NPCs, not even close. It’s a bad conversion from an edition where attributes and skills were higher across the board.

In the basic rules it states that someone with a weapon skill of 16 (18?) is the best of his generation. ALL of these guys are the best of their generation?

Fighters I, II, and III aren't supposed to be a measure of "average"; they're just "generic." "Generic" doesn't mean "mook"; it means "can be used over and over in different contexts without redesigning them." Fighters I, II, and III are dangerous individuals on purpose. They're not "Townsperson I, II, and III" or "Desert Dweller I, II, and III."

...but the PCs ARE townsperson I, II and III. That’s the problem.

There’s nothing wrong with an adventure having NPCs more powerful than the PCs.... but ALL the NPCs overpowering ALL the PCs?

Why are the PCs even adventuring? Why are they even being hired? The caravan should hire some of those NPCs with master level swordsmanship who can also ride standing on their head in the saddle that are apparently a dime a dozen.

I mean, Fighters with master level abilities are literally everywhere in this world EXCEPT the caravan hiring grounds? If I recall correctly the adventure doesn’t have you use these guys for the hiring contests, it tells you to use a level below to a level above the PC’s skill... is there something about this world that causes every sword master to turn into a bandit when they hit skill level 15 or something?

[Empada]

I don't think the values of the NPCs stats were converted to match what is expected in 4th edition, only the points values were changed.

If I ever GM this adventure, I will certainly lower some stats. If it makes the fighters not so good at it, put more fighters.

I don't recall in with supplement, but there are some stats for generic Thug and generic Elite Thug for 4th edition.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

...because the PCs fit the same description and aren’t equally good.

No, they don't fit the same description. The PCs are not "who use force and speed to make a living." Some of them might be, but some of them may be thieves, merchants, or survivalists.

...because the NPCs have to do other things in life just like the PCs and haven’t spent any points on that. ALL they can do is swing a sword and ride? No desert survival? No land navigation? If the NPCs were fully developed they’d be 250 point characters.

So what? We're talking combat, and lesson number one when deciding whether an encounter is "balanced" is to ignore point costs. You're not going to be surviving and traveling in the desert with these guys, so there's no point in worry about their "fully developed" point totals.

....because it isn’t equally dangerous for the NPCs, not even close.

Of course it isn't! These NPCs are bullies and extortionists. They do what they do because they know they're really good at it. They're supposed to be better than the PCs, overall.

It’s a bad conversion from an edition where attributes and skills were higher across the board.

GURPS Update recommends keeping all skill levels the same and changing point values when converting characters.

The skill probability table on page B45 of the third edition calls skill level 10 "average," 12 "rather skilled," 14 "well-trained," and 16+ "expert." The fourth edition says that "ordinary folks" have skill levels between 8 and 13—which means the average is 10. The old "well-trained" is beyond the skill of "ordinary folks," and it's the point at which both editions point out that any further improvement to skill doesn't increase your odds of succeeding at ordinary tasks. "Well-trained" thus means "as good as you get without being extraordinary."

It means that all these characters with 16, 18, etc. skill are extraordinary at that skill. And this is perfectly fine. This is not unrealistic. "Just enough to get by" is not good enough to stand out and be a successful adventurer, and it's not good enough to intimidate armed caravans into paying you tolls, or attacking the caravan of the biggest merchant of all to kidnap his daughter. You have to be extraordinary to do those things.

In the basic rules it states that someone with a weapon skill of 16 (18?) is the best of his generation. ALL of these guys are the best of their generation?

Where does it say that? Campaigns says (p. 447) that skill level 16+ is reserved "for those who truly stand out in their field." The third edition book said 16+ was "expert." I don't see that the meanings of these skill levels has changed in any way.

Mind you, attributes certainly have changed. Fourth edition attributes are much less widely distributed. But that doesn't affect skill levels, except in the costs to buy them. And as we know, points were inflated going from third to fourth edition.

...but the PCs ARE townsperson I, II and III. That’s the problem.

Or they could be Fighters I, II, or III. And it's these characters who will do the fighting while the other characters do their other things.

So one of the PCs is a thief with average, not extraordinary, weapon skills. He doesn't stand toe to toe with the enemies; he sets up an ambush, or shoots missiles, or diverts them, or entraps them. Another PC is a merchant with okay weapon skills. He's not going to be too useful in the fight, but he's the one who said all the right things to Tsorvano and got them all those cool weapons and stuff to help in the fight.

Just because GURPS doesn't have classes doesn't mean every character has to be a generalist. A party of disparate specialists will have far more success.

[quote]Why are the PCs even adventuring? Why are they even being hired? The caravan should hire some of those NPCs with master level swordsmanship who can also ride standing on their head in the saddle that are apparently a dime a dozen.[/quote[

Because they don't just want to hire people who can swing swords and do tricks on horses. They want "herdsmen, scribes, translators, cooks, guides, physicians, laborers, and other hirelings." There's a rumor that he's also looking for "scouts." The PCs are adventuring because
"[r]ight now [they] are looking for a chance to travel and do something a little out of the ordinary."

The players are given a list of useful and especially useful skills, so they are expected to be good in those areas. Not all of them in all those areas. So you might want to be a merchant (that's on the list), but you may also want to be an expert swordsman. You might not be any good at Diplomacy or Desert Survival or know anything about animals, though. That's okay, because your buddy knows all about that stuff. He's not as good at fighting as you are, so you'll be there for him.

Look, if you want to argue that these fighters are too good at fighting, lower their skills and make the adventure easier for the PCs. But this has nothing to do with conversion from earlier editions; a 16 has always meant the same thing. The assignation of labels to skill levels isn't an exact science, and doesn't simulate real-world ability.

[TGLS]

Just to keep something in mind, in 3e, the point value was 100 pts. If you took the 4 characters out of the back of the basic set, and tried to run the adventure with this (perhaps tweaking them slightly so they actually have the skills they need to complete the adventure), they're going to get butchered. Even the mercenaries are going to be challenged (though the well armored one might make it through easily.)

[Ultraviolet]

I played Caravan to Ein Arris back in...1990 I think, for 3rd ed.

All 3 players were new to GURPS as was the GM. We had designed 100 point generic fantasy characters with no knowledge of what skills were needed for the adventure.
I remember us having ok combat and rogue-ish skills and maybe one of us had riding. But no Survival, Animal Handling or even the relevant languages (back when languages were skills).
I remember writing down IQ-5 defaults for the relevant languages as well as all the other key skills. I may have that old character sheet in a folder somewhere, yellowed with age and smudged.

Sometimes I wonder how we made it through the adventure, or even through the initial trials. But we did, and the adventure ran with success, I think. The GM must have been lax with our poor skills. But I don't think the combat encounters were fudged, since that was the thing we actually could do.