Typical NPC

[woerth]

In the back of Monsters, Minions, and Marauders there is a section for Human Adversaries. They say the are generic character sheets representing "typical" human NPCs and enemies. Now my question is are these what is the average out there? I ask this because most of them are 75+ points and some are over a 100 points. So basically if I have a city and it has City Guard and the players encounter a basic patrol. I can use this template for the guards?

The main reason this comes up is that I have a player that insists that most people out there do not have higher than an 8- in a skill. Maybe someone in a large city might have an 11- and then the best in a kingdom would have maybe a 14-.

The characters in the back of the book have 14- in skills and that gives me a good start to convince him that his skill rolls are too low. Just looking for some opinions.

Thanks,

Brian

[John Desmarais]

In the back of Monsters, Minions, and Marauders there is a section for Human Adversaries. They say the are generic character sheets representing "typical" human NPCs and enemies. Now my question is are these what is the average out there? I ask this because most of them are 75+ points and some are over a 100 points. So basically if I have a city and it has City Guard and the players encounter a basic patrol. I can use this template for the guards?

Probably, but it depends. In a game where the PCs are typically 150 points, 75-100 is a good "competent" normal.

[CourtFool]

8- is a familiarity. 11- is suppose to be your average professional. This has been argued before, but my opinion is that your average professional has better than a 60% chance to do his job.

[Vondy]

The main reason this comes up is that I have a player that insists that most people out there do not have higher than an 8- in a skill. Maybe someone in a large city might have an 11- and then the best in a kingdom would have maybe a 14-.

You may use whatever write-ups you wish!

And you may set whatever benchmarks you wish!

And to frankly disagree with your player: even a peasant with all 8's in the primary characteristics and only "everyman skills" will have an 11- in their profession if you go with the assumed basic package.

Further, look at the skill benchmarks in the main rulebook (they're in a sidebar). Elite people would have a 14-, but the best in the kingdom? The sidebar seems to suggest rare birds who have distinctions like "best in the land" would be in the 16- or 17- range. That's just my reading, but I think its a fair one.

As for templates, the one's in the book (for heroic games) set pretty good basic benchmarks, but I agree with John that, aside from villains, henchmen, and major players, the average "competent normal" should be somewhat lower in ability than the PCs. You decide how good the guards are, though most would probably be fairly close to the base template, with blooded veterans and officers probably weighing in as skilled normals.

[Vondy]

8- is a familiarity. 11- is suppose to be your average professional. This has been argued before, but my opinion is that your average professional has better than a 60% chance to do his job.

I think, with extra-time, which most people would get, and the fact that rolls aren't strictly required in normative circumstances, that the "average joe" could make a living on 11-. Though, I also think a significant minority of people have higher skill rolls.

I tend to do tradesmen abilities as follows:

Apprentice 8-
Journeyman 11-
Skilled Journeyman 12-13-
Master 14-
Respected Master 15-16-
Grandmaster 17+

Of course, these titles are sometimes political rather than skill based, but assuming the person has a level of skill commensurate to their formal ranking...

[AliceTheOwl]

The main reason this comes up is that I have a player that insists that most people out there do not have higher than an 8- in a skill. Maybe someone in a large city might have an 11- and then the best in a kingdom would have maybe a 14-.

Remind your player of situational modifiers. If someone's really "the best, ever" at something, that means he can perform the task blindfolded in a snowstorm after just opening his eyes in the morning. Jobs carry distractions, and so a professional learns to take distractions in stride, and can perform his job without intense concentration. In addition, he can count on this ability when he needs it.

It's your game, so you get the set the bar for skills. But, unless the players are the only Heroes in the world, and experts in everything they do, they'll run into normal people who can beat them at what the NPC is good at.

As for point levels, I usually set normals at 75 points (50 +25 in disadvantages) for my own game, which is half of where I started the PCs. Nonetheless, they meet people who are better than them. For most interactions, I give the NPC an 11-, and I tend to favor the PC with situational modifiers, provided they roleplay it, even a little. The harder I want the PCs to try or to plan, the higher I'll make that roll, usually.

[Chris Goodwin]

8- is a familiarity. 11- is suppose to be your average professional. This has been argued before, but my opinion is that your average professional has better than a 60% chance to do his job.

Most people also have the werewithal to take Extra Time, have an environment at least reasonably conducive to doing their jobs, have people around they can ask, have Complementary Skills, etc. I'd guess that the average person can pull down at least +3 in bonuses without even batting an eye.

[Lord Liaden]

Also note that in the rulebook section on "Skill Rolls" it says that, "In ordinary situations, when a character is under no stress or pressure and has sufficient time to perform a task correctly, he doesn't have to make a Skill Roll... Characters must make Skill Rolls whenever they attempt to use a Skill in difficult or dangerous situations, when under pressure, when success is crucial or unlikely, or when in combat." (5ER p. 42)

[OddHat]

It's your campaign; set normal NPCs and their skill rolls wherever you feel like. Your player does not get the final say.

In my home setting (Imperium Romanum), I set a typical bandit or faceless guard at about 25 points and some trivial equipment, with all characteristics starting at 8. These are the guys I expect PCs to kill by the dozen. A noteworthy peasant or townsman would be at the same level. Veterans and guard officers, people who can put up a fair fight, come in at 50-75 points. Local Heroes, the guys your PCs will need to take seriously, come in around 100 points with a base 10 in all characteristics, same as starting PCs. Champions, characters that are major threats to PCs or to the entire party, can range from 150-200 points or more.

Those are just my numbers, that make sense for my game. What makes sense for your game could be different.

[Nolgroth]

Remind your player of situational modifiers. If someone's really "the best, ever" at something, that means he can perform the task blindfolded in a snowstorm after just opening his eyes in the morning. Jobs carry distractions, and so a professional learns to take distractions in stride, and can perform his job without intense concentration. In addition, he can count on this ability when he needs it.

It's your game, so you get the set the bar for skills. But, unless the players are the only Heroes in the world, and experts in everything they do, they'll run into normal people who can beat them at what the NPC is good at.

As for point levels, I usually set normals at 75 points (50 +25 in disadvantages) for my own game, which is half of where I started the PCs. Nonetheless, they meet people who are better than them. For most interactions, I give the NPC an 11-, and I tend to favor the PC with situational modifiers, provided they roleplay it, even a little. The harder I want the PCs to try or to plan, the higher I'll make that roll, usually.

I hope I don't come off sanctimonious or rude or anything like that, but it sounds like you have made great strides in the GM department Alice. That whole post just sounds like you've put some thought on how to make the game both fair and interesting. I can remember the "newbie GM anxiety" posts from a while back and it seems you had nothing to worry about.

On topic, I would say that 75 point character is a little better than normal. I would tend to think that a 25+25 (50 total) represents your average Joe on the street. The average Joe may not be challenging, but that's why he's average. I also agree with Von-D that 11- is the average skill and most professionals make up for it by "taking the time." Of course, that makes me wonder how long term payoff skills (PS: Farmer) work out. Does the average farmer need to make a skill roll to see if he gets a decent crop or is it an automatic success barring any unusual circumstances (drought, pestilence, etc)?

And then I remember that most games won't be about transporting the barley crop to market after roleplaying a season of growing.

[CourtFool]

The problem I have with the "taking extra time" and "pull down at least +3 in bonuses” and "ordinary situations…doesn't have to make a Skill Roll" arguments is that I have yet to play with a GM who allowed any of this. Whenever I get called to make a roll, it is a straight roll (if I am lucky) or a roll at penalties. This is regardless of the situation which may allow extra time, or complimentary rolls or what have you. The default is a straight roll.

[AliceTheOwl]

I hope I don't come off sanctimonious or rude or anything like that, but it sounds like you have made great strides in the GM department Alice. That whole post just sounds like you've put some thought on how to make the game both fair and interesting. I can remember the "newbie GM anxiety" posts from a while back and it seems you had nothing to worry about.

Why, thank you. ^ v ^

(No, you didn't come across as rude. I'm still sometimes questioning my GMing abilities, and I don't get a lot of feedback from my players. Knowing I'm doing it right, according to a more experienced board contributer, is an ego boost. ^ v ^ )

[Chris Goodwin]

The problem I have with the "taking extra time" and "pull down at least +3 in bonuses” and "ordinary situations…doesn't have to make a Skill Roll" arguments is that I have yet to play with a GM who allowed any of this. Whenever I get called to make a roll, it is a straight roll (if I am lucky) or a roll at penalties. This is regardless of the situation which may allow extra time, or complimentary rolls or what have you. The default is a straight roll.

Sure, because you're not usually gaming out "Office Space: the RPG." Generally, when the GM says make a roll, it's because something's at stake and the situation isn't ideal. Even then, I usually say "My KS: Spirits, Spectres, and Ghosts? Okay, I'm looking in Tobin's Spirit Guide and taking Extra Time to my roll. Let's say default is 1 Minute, I'm taking 5 Minutes; that ought to be worth +2 total..." If he doesn't outright say "No, you don't get the +2," then assume you get it and roll accordingly.

There's a process of negotiation that begins when you say "I do this thing...." and ends when the GM says "Okay, roll 'em."

[CourtFool]

I guess I have never come from the position that the player can determine what bonuses they can add.

[teh bunneh]

I guess I have never come from the position that the player can determine what bonuses they can add.

It helps if you bring a gun or knife of some sort to your gaming sessions.