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]

Re: Typical NPC

 

In the back of Monsters' date=' 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? [/quote']

 

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

[CourtFool]

Re: Typical NPC

 

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]

Re: Typical NPC

 

 

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]

Re: Typical NPC

 

8- is a familiarity. 11- is suppose to be your average professional. This has been argued before' date=' but my opinion is that your average professional has better than a 60% chance to do his job.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Typical NPC

 

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]

Re: Typical NPC

 

8- is a familiarity. 11- is suppose to be your average professional. This has been argued before' date=' but my opinion is that your average professional has better than a 60% chance to do his job.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Typical NPC

 

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]

Re: Typical NPC

 

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]

Re: Typical NPC

 

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]

Re: Typical NPC

 

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]

Re: Typical NPC

 

I hope I don't come off sanctimonious or rude or anything like that' date=' 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.[/quote']

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]

Re: Typical NPC

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Typical NPC

 

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

[teh bunneh]

Re: Typical NPC

 

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.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Typical NPC

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']I see your point. I think there is an (incorrect) assumption among GMs that the situation is always stressful and any test must be resolved with dice. Looking back, I believe that I have fallen into this trap myself. Food for thought.

[CourtFool]

Re: Typical NPC

 

As have I. Now I frequently just allow the PCs to succeed in any task I believe they have sufficient Skill Levels in. Granted, this is very arbitrary, but it speeds up the game considerably and allows the Skill Monkeys some spot light time.

 

After reading through Spirit of the Century (SotC), I am considering changing my approach to Skill Rolls. SotC suggests that you should only have the characters roll when both failure and success would be interesting and add to the story (Yes, a very narrative approach. Why do you look so surprised?).

 

When the PCs attempt something for which I believe failure would be boring and distract from the story, I will decide the outcome based on their Skill Level and tell them. I will then have them roll the dice, and if they make their roll by a wide margin, I will improve upon the 'base' outcome. For example, if I need them to discover a clue, I may say they find it after an hour of searching. They roll and someone makes their Perception by 4, I let that character find it after five minutes.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Typical NPC

 

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

 

I didn't mean to imply that. It's more like the player saying "Okay, GM, I'm angling for these bonuses here; do I get them or not?" I see it as akin to combat maneuvers; if I say "I dodge," I don't need the GM to explicitly tell me I've got +3 to my DCV; we both know that's the case, and I know he's not going to blink when I tell him my DCV is 10 this phase instead of 7. I think of those other bits the same way; the "using excellent tools" and "Extra Time" parts are effectively "Skill maneuvers" the way Dodge is a combat maneuver.

[OddHat]

Re: Typical NPC

 

I didn't mean to imply that. It's more like the player saying "Okay' date=' GM, I'm angling for these bonuses here; do I get them or not?" I see it as akin to combat maneuvers; if I say "I dodge," I don't need the GM to explicitly tell me I've got +3 to my DCV; we both know that's the case, and I know he's not going to blink when I tell him my DCV is 10 this phase instead of 7. I think of those other bits the same way; the "using excellent tools" and "Extra Time" parts are effectively "Skill maneuvers" the way Dodge is a combat maneuver.[/quote']

 

Exactly.

 

In a way this issue relates to the idea that Social Skills "Do Nothing". By the rules, they have pretty clear effects in 5th, and are resisted in specific ways; Many GMs who came up in earlier editions, or haven't closely read the rules on skills, like to keep the game elements out of the loop when playing out non-combat situations; that's fine, but it definitely moves the locus of control from rules based interactions to role play and ultimately to the GM.

[Zed-F]

Re: Typical NPC

 

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

 

If you don't put a stake in the ground and argue for your own bonuses, who will?

Expecting the GM to think of everything for you is asking to fail a lot.

[Zed-F]

Re: Typical NPC

 

I didn't mean to imply that. It's more like the player saying "Okay' date=' GM, I'm angling for these bonuses here; do I get them or not?" I see it as akin to combat maneuvers; if I say "I dodge," I don't need the GM to explicitly tell me I've got +3 to my DCV; we both know that's the case, and I know he's not going to blink when I tell him my DCV is 10 this phase instead of 7. I think of those other bits the same way; the "using excellent tools" and "Extra Time" parts are effectively "Skill maneuvers" the way Dodge is a combat maneuver.[/quote']

Agreed.

[CourtFool]

Re: Typical NPC

 

If you don't put a stake in the ground and argue for your own bonuses, who will?

Expecting the GM to think of everything for you is asking to fail a lot.

 

I do not expect the GM to think of everything. I am not going to badger him for the next 15 minutes trying to add in every little thing I think could get a bonus out of either.

 

I was always under the impression that using a Skill for what it was generally intended, a professional trying to make a living with said skill, was going to be taking the standard time and using the proper tools. Sure, you could take more time...but then you are falling behind in your work. Sure, you could buy superior tools, but I do not think most professionals would have access to 'superior tools'. If they do, then are they really 'superior'?

 

Now, I could see an argument for classifying using a skill for its general purpose as being 'easy' and/or 'routine'. Again, my experience has been that no GM every uses those modifiers.

[Alibear]

Re: Typical NPC

 

When I GM normal people, office workers whatever are 0+25 point characters.

 

Policemen, soldiers, martial artists black belts are 25+25

 

SWAT, FBI, Combat hardened troops and National Team Black belts, pro boxers etc are 50+50.

 

Special Forces, World Champion boxers, Martial Artists so good they are famous outside their field are 75+75 .

 

 

The toughest bad ass people on the planet & hardmen from fiction, Jack Bauer, Jet Lee, Bruce Lee, James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Billy the Kid & Tarzan would be 100+100.

 

 

Those are my benchmarks.

[Markdoc]

Re: Typical NPC

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Yeah, but that's a problem with the GM, not the rules: conversely, I've played with maybe a dozen Hero system GMs and only one has refused such bonuses. And he was so spectacularly bad, the game collapsed after a few sessions and we went back to playing AD&D. He did manage to give me two really good gaming stories, though.

 

In my game, my players will routinely angle for extras on their skill rolls - one of the players, for example has acting in addition to his conversation: he'll play for an acting roll to try and make himself seem more appealing to whoever he's trying to weasel information out of (for example playing the noble when talking down to soldiers, pretending to be drunk when talking at a dinner, etc: so he can get a complementary roll to his conversation). The sneak will use a rope and grapnel to get a bonus to his climbing roll, the priest will go to the temple library to get bonuses to his KS, etc.

 

And nobody has to make a climbing roll to go up a ladder

 

Here's my take on skills.

http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/hero_houserules.htm#NewSystemofSkillPricing

 

cheers, Mark