Building NPCs

[BadCatMan]

There's something I'm not clear on here and can't find a rule for...

How many character points, skill points and story points should NPCs be built with, either as a set number or a recommended range?

Or is it just a matter of adding on what is required and suits?

I just checked the Auton and the Catkind, and they both have less CPs and SPs and STs all over.

[oldscool]

for normal npc's id say a good rule of thumb would be

18 charicer points
1 good trait
1 bad trait
10 skill points
and 1-6 story points

for any major NPCs thou just stat them out like normal PC's

[allenshock]

In any kind of point based system, I never worry about "balancing" the NPCs. I just give them what they oughtta have. (This advice is actually given explicitly in Savage Worlds, but I think it's good for a lot of games).

Allen

[JohnK]

Hullo, Allen,

Dec 24, 2009 15:14:50 GMT allenshock said:

In any kind of point based system, I never worry about "balancing" the NPCs. I just give them what they oughtta have. (This advice is actually given explicitly in Savage Worlds, but I think it's good for a lot of games).

What you said.

When it comes right down to it, NPCs, villains, and aliens in the game based on stuff from the tv series should have what they need to have. A case in point is the Ice Warriors/Lords that I created, where they have stats and all that I based on the episodes of the series that featured them. The same will be true of the Hartnell Doctor that I've been statting up.

[BadCatMan]

Okay, thanks.

I'm used to D&D where NPCs are built with less points and less equipment, so they're usually less of a challenge for PCs, balanced out by being much more plentiful. Everyone has a Challenge Rating to show their absolute level of difficulty (usually in combat, though it works for other opposed situations).

I guess in DWAITAS an NPC or monster would be built the same way: less points, less of a challenge; more points, more of a challenge (in combat, conversation, research, etc). A Catkind is less dangerous than a Dalek, after all. Though it doesn't matter as much here, or at all.

[Curufea]

I'm from the "stat only as needed, and rarely even then" school of GMing.
I do tend to do a lot of my difficult number basing on a priority of-
Do I want them to succeed?
Is it a good enough roll?
If I fail them, will it be more interesting to see what they do next?
After that, I tend to look at what the difficulty would like be based on circumstance and the characters involved (ie simulation of the universe).

[gmjake]

Dec 24, 2009 15:14:50 GMT allenshock said:

In any kind of point based system, I never worry about "balancing" the NPCs. I just give them what they oughtta have. (This advice is actually given explicitly in Savage Worlds, but I think it's good for a lot of games).

Allen

they say this in the mutants and masterminds rulebook as well. certainly is easier than traditional d20.

[mhopcroft]

Dec 24, 2009 15:14:50 GMT allenshock said:

In any kind of point based system, I never worry about "balancing" the NPCs. I just give them what they oughtta have. (This advice is actually given explicitly in Savage Worlds, but I think it's good for a lot of games).

Especially for a game as rules-light as this one. One can easily use the scales in the GM Guide to determine just where on each scale the NPC lies, and compare them to the character sheets provided so that you can see what the Attributes are. Skills can be assigned based on their role in the adventure, as can Traits. This game was built for thick-and-fast character modeling.

If you are creating a recurring foe, so much the better to do the modeling. Just don't forget to give him a plausible escape route.

[Curufea]

"plausability of escape route" is may vary in interpretation and practice, however