Using story points for NPCs

[mspeepers]

I'm a GM who is relatively new to DWAITAS.  Are there any suggestions for how best to use story points for NPCs?  Specifically, do you tell your players an NPC is spending a point or do you spend it secretly?

I can see pros and cons to both - the con I'm running into most commonly is that if I say an NPC is spending a point, I have one player who will immediately want to spend one of his points, and then we get into an auction-like scenario in which he tries to run down the NPC's points.  Is that even allowed?  Should I let the player (whose PC is a Time Lord, so he's short on story points anyway) just run down his points as a life lesson?

Alternately, if I don't let the players know points are being spent, then they may get demoralized if they keep failing with otherwise good rolls.  Any tips on keeping a good balance?

[Stormcrow]

Announce them. If the players try the auction, let them spend as much as they want. When they run out, the only way to get more will be to do interesting and complicated things that disadvantage themselves.

An NPC should use its story points considering how much longer they are likely to be involved in the game. A one-scene guard with one story point will certainly use that story point in his one scene. A major villain will spread them out across the entire adventure. Don't worry about overpowering the players with this: that's what THEIR story points are for.

[thewarchief]

Feb 28, 2018 5:24:12 GMT Stormcrow said:

Don't worry about overpowering the players with this: that's what THEIR story points are for.

Except that if you run one of those scenes with an army of baddies and use all the story points for the NPCs the players won't have enough to keep up.


I'd say use NPC story points in moderation. It's more important to make the important scenes interesting, and the important villains effective, than the 1 story point guard who isn't going to be playing every session.

[Stormcrow]

Feb 28, 2018 13:33:42 GMT thewarchief said:

Except that if you run one of those scenes with an army of baddies and use all the story points for the NPCs the players won't have enough to keep up.

Listen to what you just said: an army of baddies against the players. Pretty sure the odds are in the army's favor, story points or no. This is when the players decide to surrender, and save their story points for escaping. Or using their capture as an opportunity to infiltrate the bad guys' lair, if appropriate.

If you decide you want to have a shootout against an army of enemies... yes, you'll use up all your story points. And so you should.

[mspeepers]

Thank you both, this is helpful! One of our challenges in the game is for players to feel like they need to spend story points - we're all accustomed to D&D, which does not have a similar mechanic, and I have some min-maxed PCs to contend with as well.

They're going up against the Great Intelligence next game, who has 12 story points, so I will make a point of spending them all.

[thewarchief]

Feb 28, 2018 21:59:18 GMT Stormcrow said:

Listen to what you just said: an army of baddies against the players. Pretty sure the odds are in the army's favor, story points or no. This is when the players decide to surrender, and save their story points for escaping. Or using their capture as an opportunity to infiltrate the bad guys' lair, if appropriate.

If you decide you want to have a shootout against an army of enemies... yes, you'll use up all your story points. And so you should.

Who said anything about a shootout? The thing is the player heroes show up every game session (we hope), and have to get through the entire adventure, session after session. Most NPC opponents don't have to do much more that appear on one scene, and the GM has no reason to hold any Story Points in reserve to save them should things go badly for them. So it is very easy to just have the NPCs "Kamikaze" the heroes with story points, and it adds up. I doubt the Doctor would last very long if the NPCs did that every session.

I think that, on the program, quite a few NPC story points probably get spent in ways that don't directly affect the heroes. Taking out some human soldiers, or some show of force that proves to the audience how dangerous they are, but don't have any real affect on the story or the heroes. I believe that the NPCs should be handled in similar manner in the game.

[Stormcrow]

It doesn't have to be a shootout. The conflict system is appropriate, and identical, for all challenge types. Suppose it's an army of telepaths who want to brainwash you. That's an army of them. Or suppose the villain's lair is heavily guarded by 1-story-point guards who just want to spot you and sound the alarm. You're talking about taking on an army of guards.

The problem isn't NPCs using all their story points; the problem is the idea that the PCs can blatantly take on an army. The only time in Doctor Who that something like that happens is when someone, usually the Doctor, using the "most remarkable man" rule, or whatever later editions call it, prearranges with the GM some kind of special situation that also grants the player buckets of story points for use later.

Also, players will typically regain all their story points between adventures, unless there is a good reason not to. So they don't have to conserve them after the end of an adventure.

And if a one-shot character can't make use of their story points, what is the point of having them?

[thewarchief]

Mar 2, 2018 18:30:13 GMT Stormcrow said:

It doesn't have to be a shootout. The conflict system is appropriate, and identical, for all challenge types. Suppose it's an army of telepaths who want to brainwash you. That's an army of them. Or suppose the villain's lair is heavily guarded by 1-story-point guards who just want to spot you and sound the alarm. You're talking about taking on an army of guards.

The problem isn't NPCs using all their story points; the problem is the idea that the PCs can blatantly take on an army. The only time in Doctor Who that something like that happens is when someone, usually the Doctor, using the "most remarkable man" rule, or whatever later editions call it, prearranges with the GM some kind of special situation that also grants the player buckets of story points for use later.

I never said the PCs tried to take on the army. They might be trying to avoid it. Very often in the series the heroes have to evade/escape from/get around multiple foes (Daleks, Cybermen, Autons, etc.) Army aside, even a quite reasonable sized group (say 3-6 baddies) can prove overwhelming in they dump all their SPs to do so. The baddies have the advantage in that, unlike the PC heroes, they are completely expendable. They don't even need to actually make it though the scene, nor do they have to conserve any SPs for their survival.

Minor NPCs with only 1-2 SP can "whittle down" the heroes and make then a little too vulnerable for the "name" villains later in the adventure.

Mar 2, 2018 18:30:13 GMT Stormcrow said:

Also, players will typically regain all their story points between adventures, unless there is a good reason not to.

The rules are a bit less lenient about that. It actually left up tho the GM how many the heroes get back between adventures, and regaining all of them isn't "typical" at all. 

Mar 2, 2018 18:30:13 GMT Stormcrow said:

So they don't have to conserve them after the end of an adventure.

Same with the baddies. But the baddies also don't have to conserve any SP during the adventure. The PC heroes do-they might need to deal with more baddies later in the advnute, or even save a few to stop the villains at the end of the adventure.

Mar 2, 2018 18:30:13 GMT Stormcrow said:

And if a one-shot character can't make use of their story points, what is the point of having them?

I didn't say can't, I said shouldn't. Or at least not always in direct opposition to the PC heroes.

I'n not saying the NPCs shouldn't use the SPs, only that a GM should be very careful about how and when they use those SPs. Since the goal of the game is to have an exciting adventure, story points shouldn't be spent in an entirely antagonistic manner. Some points should be spent in ways that enhance the adventure, even if it isn't in direct opposition to a die roll made by one or more PC heroes. It's the NPCs who are opposing the Heroes, not the GM. 

I also think that the SP ratings for many adversaries are possible Story point values not definite values. The core rules mention, multiple times, that some NPCs have story points, but the write ups for the baddies in the supplements gives story points to nearly all of them.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 5, 2018 15:34:54 GMT thewarchief said:

I never said the PCs tried to take on the army. They might be trying to avoid it. Very often in the series the heroes have to evade/escape from/get around multiple foes (Daleks, Cybermen, Autons, etc.)

Now you're just moving the goalposts. And I brought up avoiding an army in my last post above. In the Doctor Who game, a conflict is a conflict is a conflict as far as story points go.

Army aside, even a quite reasonable sized group (say 3-6 baddies) can prove overwhelming in they dump all their SPs to do so. The baddies have the advantage in that, unlike the PC heroes, they are completely expendable. They don't even need to actually make it though the scene, nor do they have to conserve any SPs for their survival.

And bad guys also don't have any way to generate more story points, while the players do.

So let's say there's a base of six Daleks that, for some reason, the players feel they must infiltrate. The basic rules suggest Daleks have 5–8 story points. That means there's no such thing as a "mook" Dalek; what the players are trying to do is really hard. The game play should reflect that. If you've got a group of four characters averaging, say, 10 story points each, you might simply waltz in and go toe-to-toe, story-point-for-story-point with the Daleks, but it's risky and depends on them having minimal story points. You're better off avoiding contact with Daleks whenever possible, and finding opportunities to generate more. But if your game master is intentionally nerfing the Daleks to artificially maintain his idea of "the story," what's the point?

Frankly, the best way to infiltrate a Dalek base is to let them capture you, which should net you a bunch of story points, and then use those points to escape and do whatever you have to do in the base. Which is exactly how you'd expect a Doctor Who story to go. Your characters might not even intend to be captured, but you, the player, arrange it.

Minor NPCs with only 1-2 SP can "whittle down" the heroes and make then a little too vulnerable for the "name" villains later in the adventure.

Why are these players wasting all their story points on minor NPCs with only one or two story points? Is this a gauntlet they have to pass through? Can't they find other ways to do what they want? Is there only one corridor in this base with a one-point guard every five meters, and they try to fast-talk their way past every single one?

Mar 2, 2018 18:30:13 GMT Stormcrow said:

Also, players will typically regain all their story points between adventures, unless there is a good reason not to.

The rules are a bit less lenient about that. It actually left up tho the GM how many the heroes get back between adventures, and regaining all of them isn't "typical" at all. 

"Of course, the most common reward will be the restoration of spent Story Points,"

"In between the parts of a two-part or three-part story, the characters should keep the Story Points they have." "their totals shouldn’t be reset – after all, it’s the same story"
Which suggests that resetting story point totals is fairly normal between unrelated adventures. Plus, it makes thematic sense: one adventure in Doctor Who is usually isolated from the others, so you should have your full resources for each to reflect that. It's only if the adventure takes a toll on you and you didn't play well enough to earn them back that you'll end up not getting them.

Mar 2, 2018 18:30:13 GMT Stormcrow said:

And if a one-shot character can't make use of their story points, what is the point of having them?

I didn't say can't, I said shouldn't.

Semantics. I'll revise my statement: "If a one-shot character shouldn't make use of their story points, what is the point of having them?"

Or at least not always in direct opposition to the PC heroes.

Pretty much the only time NPCs need to roll is in direct opposition to the PC heroes.

I'n not saying the NPCs shouldn't use the SPs, only that a GM should be very careful about how and when they use those SPs. Since the goal of the game is to have an exciting adventure, story points shouldn't be spent in an entirely antagonistic manner. Some points should be spent in ways that enhance the adventure, even if it isn't in direct opposition to a die roll made by one or more PC heroes. It's the NPCs who are opposing the Heroes, not the GM. 

Sure, NPCs have plenty of things they can spend story points on. I'm not advocating saving NPC story points purely for getting into bidding wars with players, just that if players insist on a bidding war, there's no reason not to oblige them. Some NPCs might reserve some of their story points for escape, for instance: the main bad guy might always save his last story point to suddenly slip out a secret door nobody knew was there. That's fine. But if Donna Noble tries to fast-talk her way past Joe the Guard with his single story point, Joe's gonna spend that story point trying to do his job and not be fast-talked. That's why Joe has that story point. If Donna reeeeeeally wants to get past Joe, she has to decide whether it's worth spending story points on it, or looking for another way.

I also think that the SP ratings for many adversaries are possible Story point values not definite values. The core rules mention, multiple times, that some NPCs have story points, but the write ups for the baddies in the supplements gives story points to nearly all of them.

Certainly. Every NPC should have story points appropriate to its role. The listed story points are a guideline for how influential that creature or NPC should generally be. It would be totally inappropriate to have one-point Dalek guards, because Daleks are not that easily overcome, just as it is totally inappropriate to give Joe the Guard 10 story points for guarding a door. So Daleks generally get 5–8 story points because they are generally that much harder than one-point Joe the Guard to oppose in any given conflict. But if that Dalek over there is the special Over-Coordinator Dalek running the entire base, it probably has more story points than the other Daleks, maybe even more than the listed 8.

[thewarchief]

Mar 6, 2018 2:32:00 GMT Stormcrow said:

And bad guys also don't have any way to generate more story points, while the players do.

The bad guys don't NEED to generate more story points. They don't HAVE to get through the scene let alone an adventure or series of adventures.

Mar 6, 2018 2:32:00 GMT Stormcrow said:

So let's say there's a base of six Daleks that, for some reason, the players feel they must infiltrate. The basic rules suggest Daleks have 5–8 story points. That means there's no such thing as a "mook" Dalek; what the players are trying to do is really hard. The game play should reflect that.

No, it shouldn't reflect that, it happens all the time in the series. If the series ran that way, the Doctor and his companions would have been dead a long time ago.

Mar 6, 2018 2:32:00 GMT Stormcrow said:

If you've got a group of four characters averaging, say, 10 story points each, you might simply waltz in and go toe-to-toe, story-point-for-story-point with the Daleks, but it's risky and depends on them having minimal story points.

Minimal story points and a strange desire to take a stroll out of their armored travel units. Six Daleks, especially new series Daleks are a serious threat even without any story points.

Mar 6, 2018 2:32:00 GMT Stormcrow said:

You're better off avoiding contact with Daleks whenever possible, and finding opportunities to generate more.

Which you won't be able to do if the Dalek guard that the heroes spot while moving about burns a bunch of story points to detect them and report that info back to his superiors.

Mar 6, 2018 2:32:00 GMT Stormcrow said:

But if your game master is intentionally nerfing the Daleks to artificially maintain his idea of "the story," what's the point?

The point is that the heroes are supposed to be able to beat them. Look at the show. In some episodes the Daleks are very tough, with a casing that is virtually imperious to physical attacks, and even a single Dalek is a great adversary- other times they get pushed around, and barely have time for a group chant before blowing up. On the series the Daleks get "internationally nerfed by the GM to manintain his idea of 'the story'" in some manner in virtually every adventure.

Just look at Dalek marksmanship. They have a very high success rate of hitting any target other than the Doctor or a companion, when their success rate drops down to about 2 hits -and you can't tell me that all those Daleks over the years were always fresh out of story points, and the Doctor and Companions always had enough to ensure a miss.

Mar 6, 2018 2:32:00 GMT Stormcrow said:

Frankly, the best way to infiltrate a Dalek base is to let them capture you, which should net you a bunch of story points, and then use those points to escape and do whatever you have to do in the base. Which is exactly how you'd expect a Doctor Who story to go. Your characters might not even intend to be captured, but you, the player, arrange it.

That's assuming that the Daleks even bother to capture the heroes instead of just exterminating them. Once again, "yes the game master is intentionally nerfing the Daleks to artificially maintain his idea of "the story." The episodes do exactly that.

Why are these players wasting all their story points on minor NPCs with only one or two story points? Is this a gauntlet they have to pass through? Can't they find other ways to do what they want? Is there only one corridor in this base with a one-point guard every five meters, and they try to fast-talk their way past every single one?

If those minor NPCs are put into a situation where they are spending their 1-2 SP against the heroes then yes, it does become a gantlet. Now if the player are't encountering those minor NPCs then those NPCs stats and story points aren't a factor at all. But then, to use your own argument, why given those minor NPCs any story points if they aren't going to be using them?

Mar 6, 2018 2:32:00 GMT Stormcrow said:

"In between the parts of a two-part or three-part story, the characters should keep the Story Points they have." "their totals shouldn’t be reset – after all, it’s the same story"
Which suggests that resetting story point totals is fairly normal between unrelated adventures. Plus, it makes thematic sense: one adventure in Doctor Who is usually isolated from the others, so you should have your full resources for each to reflect that. It's only if the adventure takes a toll on you and you didn't play well enough to earn them back that you'll end up not getting them.

I assume thats a quote from soemwhere in the rules. Here's another (12th Doctor edition, page 109 under Increasing Story Points): "Story Points are replenished a little in between adventures", which suggests the opposite.

Mar 6, 2018 2:32:00 GMT Stormcrow said:

I'll revise my statement: "If a one-shot character shouldn't make use of their story points, what is the point of having them?"

Exactly. And that is why the core rules state that "some" not most or all, villians have story points. Now the reason why most the baddies in the supplements have them listed is so that a Gm has an idea of how many to assign to an NPC if that NPC is going to be significant enough to the story to warrant having story points. But that doesn't mean you can't have a "mook" Dalek in an adventure. They certainly have had them in the series.

Pretty much the only time NPCs need to roll is in direct opposition to the PC heroes.

Yes, but NPCs shouldn't be there just to throw story points at the PC heroes like some sort of story point grenade, with no regard for their own well being.

Mar 6, 2018 2:32:00 GMT Stormcrow said:

Sure, NPCs have plenty of things they can spend story points on. I'm not advocating saving NPC story points purely for getting into bidding wars with players, just that if players insist on a bidding war, there's no reason not to oblige them. Some NPCs might reserve some of their story points for escape, for instance: the main bad guy might always save his last story point to suddenly slip out a secret door nobody knew was there. That's fine.

Good. One thing that can happen, especially with a new GM and new players is that the GM will run as an adversary, rather than running the NPC baddies as adversaries. It can really have a strong impact on how the adventure plays out.

Mar 6, 2018 2:32:00 GMT Stormcrow said:

But if Donna Noble tries to fast-talk her way past Joe the Guard with his single story point, Joe's gonna spend that story point trying to do his job and not be fast-talked. That's why Joe has that story point.

Yes, but not every NPC in every situation should be put in a position of opposition to the PCs with an SP on hand to back them up. In other words every guard shouldn't be a clone of Joe (unless Joe is a Sontaran), and not every guard should have that story point. After all, i's the GM who decided to put Joe in the adventure and give him a story point.

Mar 6, 2018 2:32:00 GMT Stormcrow said:

If Donna reeeeeeally wants to get past Joe, she has to decide whether it's worth spending story points on it, or looking for another way.

if every guard Donna encounters in every adventure has an SP on hand to thwart her then there really ins't another way. If she needs to get past Joe, then that SP of his is going to come into play. Conflict is conflict. Every NPC shouldn't be wating around the corner for a way to apply that 1 SP they have as a spoiler when a PC tries something.

Mar 6, 2018 2:32:00 GMT Stormcrow said:

Certainly. Every NPC should have story points appropriate to its role. The listed story points are a guideline for how influential that creature or NPC should generally be. It would be totally inappropriate to have one-point Dalek guards, because Daleks are not that easily overcome, just as it is totally inappropriate to give Joe the Guard 10 story points for guarding a door. So Daleks generally get 5–8 story points because they are generally that much harder than one-point Joe the Guard to oppose in any given conflict.

Hey, I think we are close here. I think the guidelines are more an upper range value than the average guideline. Here's why. In the series there are various times where someone spots a Dalek or group of Daleks coming down a corridor/street/cavern/etc. and ducks out of the way to avoids being detected. It happens quite a bit, and not just with Daleks. Now if all those Daleks had 5 SPs on hand, and spent them to try and do their job, like Joe, then chances are they would detect those characters hiding behind the wall a lot more often than what happens on the series.

Another thing about the series is that you kinda reach a saturation point with large groups of baddies where the number of baddies don't really matter it's all just overkill. But when that happens most of the baddies do become 0 SP "mooks". It's also as if there should be a "mob" rule where baddies get SPs as a group. Big groups of baddies in the game fucntion more as a deterrent than as a direct threat.

Mar 6, 2018 2:32:00 GMT Stormcrow said:

But if that Dalek over there is the special Over-Coordinator Dalek running the entire base, it probably has more story points than the other Daleks, maybe even more than the listed 8.

Yup, and a head on firefight against him probably ins't a good idea, either. I've got no problem with important NPCs having lots of SPs. They are supposed to be formidable foes, and also have a reason to use their SPs for something other than to act as a spoiler to the PCs. What I'm worried about is a new GM giving all NPCs story points and then throwing them directly against the PCs in a conflict, treating the NPCs as expendable and spending SPs like there were going to expire. It better to err on the side of caution and not give the NPCs quite enough SPs than to have overkill.

[Stormcrow]

The point is that the heroes are supposed to be able to beat them.

No! The heroes are supposed to win overall, most of the time, but it's not just a competition of who uses the most story points, and it's not just a series of encounters that whittle away the heroes' resources. It's up to the players to play well, to come up with good ideas that get around the death traps that are Doctor Who adventures. You can't just waltz past Daleks because "the heroes are supposed to be able to beat them." When is a player ever going to care about coming up with good ideas if the game master is going to intentionally nerf the monsters because the players are counting on him to do that?

You have to get to the control panel on the other side of a roomful of Daleks? For heaven's sake, don't expect to be able to blast your way through with only twelve story points! Use one story point to discover an air duct that leads to the other side of the room.

You've been captured by Sontarans and need to escape their ship before the bomb you planted goes off? Don't try to run through the corridor banging every Sontaran on their probic vents while dodging laser fire; use a story point to manage to open the door, then use another story point or gadget to create a distraction with the environmental controls that—story point—happen to be not far from the detention area.

But if you absolutely, positively, can't-get-around-it have to confront a five-point Cyberman that wants nothing more from life than to zap you, you're pretty much going to have to spend a lot of story points to get out of it.

[thewarchief]

Mar 7, 2018 17:50:49 GMT Stormcrow said:

The point is that the heroes are supposed to be able to beat them.

No! The heroes are supposed to win overall, most of the time, but it's not just a competition of who uses the most story points, and it's not just a series of encounters that whittle away the heroes' resources. It's up to the players to play well, to come up with good ideas that get around the death traps that are Doctor Who adventures. You can't just waltz past Daleks because "the heroes are supposed to be able to beat them." When is a player ever going to care about coming up with good ideas if the game master is going to intentionally nerf the monsters because the players are counting on him to do that?

And why would the players bother to come up with good ideas to get around those death traps if the NPCs are just going to spend story points to negate those good ideas?

Mar 7, 2018 17:50:49 GMT Stormcrow said:

You have to get to the control panel on the other side of a roomful of Daleks? For heaven's sake, don't expect to be able to blast your way through with only twelve story points! Use one story point to discover an air duct that leads to the other side of the room.

..and get blasted by the Dalek that spends a story point to detect you while you are in the air duct. That's the problem with giving all those Daleks 5-8 SPs. They are going to have them on hand to throw a monkey wrench into whatever clever plan the players come up with.

Mar 7, 2018 17:50:49 GMT Stormcrow said:

You've been captured by Sontarans and need to escape their ship before the bomb you planted goes off? Don't try to run through the corridor banging every Sontaran on their probic vents while dodging laser fire; use a story point to manage to open the door,

Which doesn't work because the Sontanran guard used a story point to put a "deadlock" seal on it.

or="Stormcrow " source="/post/30755/thread" timestamp="1520445049"]
then use another story point or gadget to create a distraction with the environmental controls...[/quote]

Which doesn't work because the Sontanran technician used a story point to lock you out of the controls.

Mar 7, 2018 17:50:49 GMT Stormcrow said:

...that—story point—happen to be not far from the detention area.

Where-story-point-happen you get locked in.

(Okay, that last bit is a great classic series cliffhanger that I'd probably like to keep, but the rest illustrates what I mean about giving story points to the majority of NPCs is a bad idea. Every story in the series could have came out very badly if the baddies spend some story points at the end). Often it would be a very sensible and believable outcome too. For example in 2006's "Doomsday," it would have been quite believable for at least one of the millions of Daleks and Cybermen being sucked into the void to spend story points in order to blast the rift controls and shut it off, or at least taking a parting shot at the Doctor on the way by. IMO the best way to present that is to deny the PCs that option.

Mar 7, 2018 17:50:49 GMT Stormcrow said:

But if you absolutely, positively, can't-get-around-it have to confront a five-point Cyberman that wants nothing more from life than to zap you, you're pretty much going to have to spend a lot of story points to get out of it.

I think you are missing my point. It doesn't have to be a guns blazzing fight. In fact, that approach is almost always bad in Doctor Who. My point is that NPCs armed with story points can pretty much spend them prevent/negate anything the players attempt to do. And since it is typically the afore mentioned NPCs "jobs" to do just that, and as most NPCs don't have much reason do use those story points in another way, it can make things pretty hopeless and frustrating for the players.

Player story point use is somewhat restricted as the player need to succeed at the adventure, and survive the adventure to continue on for the next one. NPCs, especially minor ones,are expendable, and are free to spend story points just on counteracting what the players are trying to do in a given scene.

IMO a good adventure requires the GM to carefully restrict and control how many story points the NPCs have, and tier use, or else the NPCs can pretty much trash any adventure.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 7, 2018 20:15:47 GMT thewarchief said:

Mar 7, 2018 17:50:49 GMT Stormcrow said:

You have to get to the control panel on the other side of a roomful of Daleks? For heaven's sake, don't expect to be able to blast your way through with only twelve story points! Use one story point to discover an air duct that leads to the other side of the room.

..and get blasted by the Dalek that spends a story point to detect you while you are in the air duct. That's the problem with giving all those Daleks 5-8 SPs. They are going to have them on hand to throw a monkey wrench into whatever clever plan the players come up with.

No. Enemies spend story points in reaction to what they know players do. If players are successfully sneaking through air ducts, the Daleks can't spend story points to detect or shoot them. And that's the point: in a direct confrontation—of any kind—enemies get to spend story points in whatever way makes sense for them to do so. But enemies that don't know you're there, or don't know what you're doing, or can't reach you, or whatever other tactic you've chosen to avoid them, can't spend story points against you.

So no, a Dalek can't spend a story point to detect you if he has no reason to look for you.

Which doesn't work because the Sontanran guard used a story point to put a "deadlock" seal on it.

Nope. Enemies can't retroactively spend story points against you just because the GM wants to screw you over.

And why would the players bother to come up with good ideas to get around those death traps if the NPCs are just going to spend story points to negate those good ideas?

Because they can't. Unless your good idea is a direct conflict with the NPC, they can't spend story points to negate it. NPCs can only spend story points on things they know are happening, or can get to, or make sense for that NPC.

For example in 2006's "Doomsday," it would have been quite believable for at least one of the millions of Daleks and Cybermen being sucked into the void to spend story points in order to blast the rift controls and shut it off, or at least taking a parting shot at the Doctor on the way by. IMO the best way to present that is to deny the PCs that option.

(A) The Daleks and Cybermen had probably spent all their story points battling each other.

(B) None of them probably had any idea those were the controls or that they could do anything about it.

(C) Maybe they did, but the Doctor and/or Rose had a story point battle with them. Since groups of allies doing the same thing get resolved as a single roll with bonuses, maybe the Cybermen and Daleks got a Fantastic! result, which the Doctor and Rose bumped down. And then the Doctor and Rose were both out of story points, so there was no way they could rescue Rose from getting sucked in too.

(D) There's little point in trying to justify a single scene in RPG terms. Writers aren't following RPG rules, and RPGs aren't beholden to every scene from their source materials. Every Dalek and Cyberman being sucked into that one spot so completely is outrageously unrealistic, even for Doctor Who.

I think you are missing my point. It doesn't have to be a guns blazzing fight.

I'm not saying it has to be. That's just an obvious example. But it can be any use of the conflict system. If your enemies are chess-masters who put chess boards at every door, and you have to win a chess match to pass each one, they're going to spend their story points to win their chess games. If you try to fast-talk them into not playing chess at all, they're going to spend their story points to avoid being duped. But if you put out a bogus message on the PA system that Garry Kasparov himself has arrived in the shuttle bay, and they all rush to see him, you've just executed a clever plan without the enemies having a chance to use lots of story points on you.

Summary: Enemies can't use story points willy-nilly to screw with you, but they can use all their story points over the course of their time in the adventure actively supporting their own agendas. If the players directly oppose those agendas, the enemies will spend their story points against them. GMs should give enemies story points appropriate to their challenge level, and then use them to support the challenge.

The GM is under no obligation to protect players from the consequences of their own actions. But players have plenty of chances to get out of tight situations all on their own.

[thewarchief]

Mar 7, 2018 22:06:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

No. Enemies spend story points in reaction to what they know players do.

Where in the rules do you see that?

Mar 7, 2018 22:06:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

If players are successfully sneaking through air ducts,

To successfully sneak they would need to beat the rolls of whoever they are trying to sneak past. So yes, the Daleks can spend story point to boost their rolls to detect the characters.

Mar 7, 2018 22:06:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

So no, a Dalek can't spend a story point to detect you if he has no reason to look for you.

Again, show me that in the rules.
Also, if the Dalek was on guard duty he'd have a reason to be looking for intruders.

Mar 7, 2018 22:06:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

Nope. Enemies can't retroactively spend story points against you just because the GM wants to screw you over.

Who said anything about it being retroactive. And besides, once again, show me that in the rules.
The story point mechanics are extremly flexible, priamily to allow the player heroes to accomplish great things. But those same mechanics work for the NPCs, too.

Mar 7, 2018 22:06:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

NPCs can only spend story points on things they know are happening, or can get to, or make sense for that NPC.

Again, show me that in the rules. As written all it takes is for someone to have a reasonable clever justification of what they are doing.

Mar 7, 2018 22:06:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

(B) None of them probably had any idea those were the controls or that they could do anything about it.

The Cybermen did. They had already ovverode those same controls to cross over into thier universe through the void. And the Daleks had come out of the void and should have worked most of it out. And they all should have figured out what was happening. Any one of them had the opportunity to shoot as they went by.

Not to mention that all of them were strong enough to just grab onto something and wait it out, like the Doctor did. IF they each had 5 SPs to spend then millions of them should have been able to do just that.

Mar 7, 2018 22:06:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

(C) Maybe they did, but the Doctor and/or Rose had a story point battle with them. Since groups of allies doing the same thing get resolved as a single roll with bonuses, maybe the Cybermen and Daleks got a Fantastic! result, which the Doctor and Rose bumped down. And then the Doctor and Rose were both out of story points, so there was no way they could rescue Rose from getting sucked in too.

No. There was no way the Doctor and Rose would have been able to out bid millions of Daleks or Cybermen. If you give the baddies that many SPs it's not a bid war anymore.

Mar 7, 2018 22:06:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

(D) There's little point in trying to justify a single scene in RPG terms. Writers aren't following RPG rules, and RPGs aren't beholden to every scene from their source materials. Every Dalek and Cyberman being sucked into that one spot so completely is outrageously unrealistic, even for Doctor Who.

That a rubbish argument. If you can't justify a single scene then what can you justify? The whole point of sotry points is to give the PC heroes the ability to do the sort of things that similar characters can do on screen, with the sort of scrip immunity that such characters have on screen.
The point of giving SP to the major villains is to keep them a challenge, and to allow them to escape at the end, since good villains are worth their weight in Dalekanium. But giving every NPC story points to use against the PC heroes is disastrous.

Mar 7, 2018 22:06:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

I'm not saying it has to be. That's just an obvious example. But it can be any use of the conflict system. If your enemies are chess-masters who put chess boards at every door, and you have to win a chess match to pass each one, they're going to spend their story points to win their chess games. If you try to fast-talk them into not playing chess at all, they're going to spend their story points to avoid being duped. But if you put out a bogus message on the PA system that Garry Kasparov himself has arrived in the shuttle bay, and they all rush to see him, you've just executed a clever plan without the enemies having a chance to use lots of story points on you.

And I'm saying that you can't execute "a clever plan without the enemies having a chance to use lots of story points on you." For example, its' quite possible that they could detect the players hacking into the PA system (either by seeing them messing with something or electronically). Also, putting out a bogus message on the PA system that Garry Kasparov himself has arrived in the shuttle bay is still a use of the Convince skill to con someone and would be contested so the players haven't bypassed any rolls, and the bad gfuys can still spend story points to avoid being duped.

Mar 7, 2018 22:06:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

Summary: Enemies can't use story points willy-nilly to screw with you, but they can use all their story points over the course of their time in the adventure actively supporting their own agendas. If the players directly oppose those agendas, the enemies will spend their story points against them. GMs should give enemies story points appropriate to their challenge level, and then use them to support the challenge.

Again, where in the rules do you see that? That is not how the story point rules are written.

Mar 7, 2018 22:06:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

The GM is under no obligation to protect players from the consequences of their own actions. But players have plenty of chances to get out of tight situations all on their own.

Not if the enemies have lot of story points. Not the way the game is written.

[thewarchief]

Look, I'll make it simple. As soon as the players try to do anything to get by the enemies in some fashion or other it's an contested roll, and that lets the bad guys spend their story points, if they have them.

[Hedgewick]

Can we agree to disagree?

[thewarchief]

Mar 8, 2018 16:33:16 GMT Hedgewick said:

Can we agree to disagree?

Sure. But can anybody help clalify just what the limits are with story points and contested rolls. If you can only contest things that you are aware of, then sneaking would always be successful since the opponent wouldn't be aware of the character sneaking in the first place. If the were aware, then the sneaking obviously wouldn't be successful, since they already know the character is there.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 8, 2018 15:04:14 GMT thewarchief said:

Mar 7, 2018 22:06:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

No. Enemies spend story points in reaction to what they know players do.

Where in the rules do you see that?

In the obvious spirit of the game.

You want textual evidence?

"Some Villains have Story Points as well that can be used in just the same way as the player's characters." Players cannot spend story points in reaction to what they do not know the villains are doing. If a villain, unbeknownst to the players, is in a completely different area and is about to launch a missile toward their position, they cannot spend story points to stop that Dalek, because they do not know about it. Likewise, villains cannot spend story points to stop players' actions when they do not know about those players' actions. They can spend story points on themselves, or against players during conflicts, but not against players when they don't know about the player-characters.

Also, "Villains have Story Points too," which is stated several times, and which means that it's the villains, not the GM, who is spending story points against the players.

Where in the rules do you see that villains can spend story points to arbitrarily mess with player-characters they're not even aware of? There is no "cancel someone else's story points" rule, mind you. Story points have specific circumstances in which they are used, and "villain cancels all your uses of story points" isn't one of them.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 8, 2018 17:37:09 GMT thewarchief said:

If you can only contest things that you are aware of, then sneaking would always be successful since the opponent wouldn't be aware of the character sneaking in the first place.

Nonono. I said villains can't spend story points on things they are not aware of, not that conflicts against someone who is not aware of you always succeed. If you try to sneak past a guard, the difficulty is the guard's Awareness + Ingenuity. If you succeed in sneaking, the guard remains unaware of you and won't spend a story point against you.

But if you try to fast-talk your way past that guard, the difficulty is determined by the guard's Ingenuity + Resolve, and now he is aware of you, and can spend his single story point to try to succeed. (The guard shakes his head, screws up his face, and says, "Hey, waitaminnit!") Now you have to decide: do you want to spend a story point to get your success back, do you want to find another way to deal with the guard, or do you want to simply accept your failure and any consequences (be captured, run away, etc.)?

[thewarchief]

Mar 8, 2018 18:21:48 GMT Stormcrow said:

Nonono. I said villains can't spend story points on things they are not aware of, not that conflicts against someone who is not aware of you always succeed.


My bad. I was looking at the rules and noticed that in the section under Reactions in the Limited Edition of the Core Rules (the one with the 12th Doctor on the cover), it states a character can't react and contest a roll that he isn't aware of, and gives sneaking as one of the examples!. While I can certainly understand that for things like dodging attacks, it seemed to make any type of subterfuge automatically successful, since the opponent wouldn't know you were doing it.

That bit contradictions whats in the "Learned Skills and Instinct" section (and doesn't seem to be in the 10th Doctor edition). LS&I makes a lot more sense.

Mar 8, 2018 18:21:48 GMT Stormcrow said:

If you try to sneak past a guard, the difficulty is the guard's Awareness + Ingenuity. If you succeed in sneaking, the guard remains unaware of you and won't spend a story point against you.

Okay now that makes sense. But if tghe guard chased me into a room, but I had ducked behind cover before he came through the door, he could spend stroy points to find me, since he has every reason to beleive that I'm still in the room, right?

Mar 8, 2018 18:21:48 GMT Stormcrow said:

But if you try to fast-talk your way past that guard, the difficulty is determined by the guard's Ingenuity + Resolve, and now he is aware of you, and can spend his single story point to try to succeed. (The guard shakes his head, screws up his face, and says, "Hey, waitaminnit!") Now you have to decide: do you want to spend a story point to get your success back, do you want to find another way to deal with the guard, or do you want to simply accept your failure and any consequences (be captured, run away, etc.)?

Thats better. Although I would think that in your chessmasters example, tapping into the PA that it's still a fast-talk, and that the baddies would still be aware of you. You might get a good situational modifier though, especially if Kasparov was expected to arrive.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 9, 2018 14:19:34 GMT thewarchief said:

Okay now that makes sense. But if tghe guard chased me into a room, but I had ducked behind cover before he came through the door, he could spend stroy points to find me, since he has every reason to beleive that I'm still in the room, right?

You bet. This is exactly the sort of action that is in the purview of a guard, so spending a story point here makes a whole lot of sense.

Thats better. Although I would think that in your chessmasters example, tapping into the PA that it's still a fast-talk, and that the baddies would still be aware of you. You might get a good situational modifier though, especially if Kasparov was expected to arrive.

But it's still a single conflict. The guards all get grouped together as per "Multiple Opponents." If there are ten guards, they get a total of +20 versus your Presence + Convince roll, so you probably won't be able to beat them without story points, but that's just one expenditure against all the guards.

Or you could instead convince the PA operator that Kasparov is here, and he, in his excitement, tells everyone over the PA. Then you'd only have to convince one person to pass the word.

The point is that the solution to minor villains whittling down the players' story points is not to prevent villains from spending story points; it's for the players not to confront the villains head-on, because they have story points. Don't try out-guard every minor guard; don't try to out-blast every minor Dalek; don't try to out-science every minor scientist.

And this matches the zeitgeist of Doctor Who. Think of the Brigadier: he almost always wants to approach a problem head-on. If he's not trying to shoot something, he's trying to order it to surrender. But it never works, and the Doctor has to find the sideways approach to solve the problem. "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets!"

[thewarchief]

Mar 9, 2018 19:11:02 GMT Stormcrow said:

You bet. This is exactly the sort of action that is in the purview of a guard, so spending a story point here makes a whole lot of sense.

Okay, it seems we are getting on the same page here.

But it's still a single conflict. The guards all get grouped together as per "Multiple Opponents." If there are ten guards, they get a total of +20 versus your Presence + Convince roll, so you probably won't be able to beat them without story points, but that's just one expenditure against all the guards.

True. Plus it's possible to use the margin of success/failure here, too. So a Gm might rules that some of the guard rush off while the rest realize it's a trick (and enventually order the others to stop), based on just how good or bad the roll was.

Mar 9, 2018 19:11:02 GMT Stormcrow said:

Or you could instead convince the PA operator that Kasparov is here, and he, in his excitement, tells everyone over the PA. Then you'd only have to convince one person to pass the word.

Much better, both in terms of pulling it off and in terms of selling it to the listeners, since it would be a familiar voice they would expect to hear over the PA. 

Mar 9, 2018 19:11:02 GMT Stormcrow said:

The point is that the solution to minor villains whittling down the players' story points is not to prevent villains from spending story points; it's for the players not to confront the villains head-on, because they have story points. Don't try out-guard every minor guard; don't try to out-blast every minor Dalek; don't try to out-science every minor scientist.

Yes, but I still think a Gm shoyuld use caution when allocaing stroy points to minor NPCs.

Mar 9, 2018 19:11:02 GMT Stormcrow said:

And this matches the zeitgeist of Doctor Who. Think of the Brigadier: he almost always wants to approach a problem head-on. If he's not trying to shoot something, he's trying to order it to surrender. But it never works, and the Doctor has to find the sideways approach to solve the problem. "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets!"

And he did, in Battlefield!
But I think it is more a case of being out-gunned and out-teched. Practically every nasty in the UNIT era was bulletproof.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 10, 2018 14:44:30 GMT thewarchief said:

Yes, but I still think a Gm shoyuld use caution when allocaing stroy points to minor NPCs.

Allocating, absolutely. I never said otherwise; I've been arguing about how NPCs spend story points, not how many the GM gives them.

The core rules give some guidance on how many story points villains should get based on their purpose; the GM's guide gives a lot more advice. It all comes down to how much plot protection you want a villain to have. If a villain is a complete mook (e.g., faceless soldiers on a battlefield), don't give him any story points at all. If it's a very minor villain who is meant to pose a specific challenge (e.g., someone guarding an important door), give him one or two story points. As the challenge and screen time of an NPC increases, give more story points, until NPCs start to have as many story points as PCs, or more. But you always give them with the understanding that they're meant to be used to further the NPC's goals, otherwise there was really no purpose in assigning them in the first place.

The story point ratings on various creatures listed in the rules aren't there despite the role of the creature in the adventure; they're there to tell you what the role of the creature will typically be. When the book says Cybermen have 3 story points, it doesn't mean that even complete mook Cybermen have 3 story points and Cyberleaders have 3 story points; it means the typical Cyberman isn't a mook and isn't an important leader. Cybermen shouldn't be treated as disposable mooks, it suggests, though you are free to ignore that advice if you don't mind comically incompetent Cybermen. Cybermen also shouldn't be treated as particularly plot-bending individuals either, though again, there are exceptions. The typical Cyberman has a plot-bendiness of 3—you can't just breeze past one, but just one usually won't be a big problem unless you've already drained your resources elsewhere.

But I think it is more a case of being out-gunned and out-teched. Practically every nasty in the UNIT era was bulletproof.

Sure. But he's heading UNIT in England. If your job requires lateral thinking, and you only know how to plow straight through, you've got a problem. Hopefully your scientific adviser can make you look good for your next performance review.