Why no stats for the main characters?

[knasserII 2,557]

As mouthy said, equipment/vehicle stats (even TIE Defender, lightsabers, armors or other ones) don't use to have so much controversy compared with characters (also using the "scenario Lando" version). But they still do it. Some people at the forum even comented controversies like "paper starfighters" or that Star Destroyers are "easy" to blow up.

By the way, a controversy, at least for me, isn't enough reason for "ignore" that idea completely. I think that, apart piloting skills, almost everyone liked "Scenario-Lando". And that hasn't gived us so much problems.

 

Thanks to "Landoscene" XD now people have full options like:

 

- Ignore them.

- Use them as writen.

- Use an adapted version.

 

Everyone can be happy. Of course without those pseudo stats you can create your own Lando, but some people like to base thei games on developers idea, that probably, are the ones who better understand what every rules means on its game. You can do your own, you can disagree or change the rules, bu the ones who better know or know the rules are probably their developers. I can be wrong of course, but this is the general sensation I use to have.

 

About ships and other equip stats, well, as Vixen said they use to have fixed values and if you want to change them like have an alternate Nebulon B version like "anti-starfighter, medic, anti capital, scout version" you have rules to change that "easily". The same with all TIE versions, freighter versions, Alderanian Cruiser (AKA Corelian Corvette). The same way that hey have so much alternative versions there is any reason ti post them?

 

My guess here is "not necessarely but...". In the D6 Dark Stryder campaign heroes used a heavily modified version of a "Corelian Corvette". That sample, at least for me, is the equivalent to the "Landoscene" and I love that.

 

The same with chars for me. I don't feel that I need the "Luke after wake up, Luke after easting breakfast" and so on other versions XD But a version based on a precise story or one based on the books era, could be fine ok to me. I would Like a "Lukescene", and if ever created, as with Lando, everyone could be happy with the rule of "ignore, accept or change it".

 

OMG I written so much again XD

Basically, what he said. I don't get why so many people are determined to stop Josep Maria from having stats for a named PC. What did he ever do to you all? Is it really that great a burden for one of you to say "I think Luke should have a higher Force rating at Yavin" and change it? Or - given that half the people arguing here have insisted that named NPCs shouldn't appear in a game anyway, just not using them?

It is obvious to me that some people have a personal objection to the inclusion of named NPCs. Well I'm fine with people not being interested. What is getting my ire up is people dead set against the inclusion which is useful to those of us that are. The only harm I am seeing from such inclusion (other than the horror of a paragraph or two of space that could be used for another type of astromech), is that it seems to really offend those that think the named characters "should be gods amongst men". People being offended should not be a reason to argue that other people shouldn't have something if it doesn't offend them.

Edited April 5, 2015 by knasserII

[knasserII 2,557]

I can apply that to anything and everything in the book. No Nebulon-B stats? Just make them.

 

No, it's not the same at all.  The Nebulon-B is supposed to scale with other starships.  Everything from Silhouette to hull points to damage output is set up to be relative to other benchmarks in the system.

 

You can't do the same thing with characters in this system.  There is no technical "top", or even a "middle".  In some campaigns, top might be 300XP, in others it might be 1000P+.  There are no levels like in D20 where you can rank a character's relative power level.

What is blackly amusing here is that you don't realize that your argument is built on your own preference. You've just argued that there isn't a defined "top" range for characters so you can't technically put the named NPCs at a place where they will always be at the top. That's where you're coming from, isn't it? Darth Vader should be arbitrarily powerful therefore stats cannot be placed upon him.

It's an argument based on a premise that I do not share. If I run a high-level game where the PCs have become more powerful than Darth Vader, it doesn't matter if there is not a "top" for characters. Your argument only makes sense within your own worldview. There's no reason others have to share it.

[whafrog 10,384]

You've just argued that there isn't a defined "top" range for characters so you can't technically put the named NPCs at a place where they will always be at the top.

 

If you could see past your own preference, you'd notice that I also pointed out there is no "middle".  There is only a bottom, and beyond that there is very little to go on.  When it comes to comparing characters to NPCs, there is no viable scale.  It has nothing to do with wanting Darth Vader to always be at the top, and everything to do with not having a way to scale him *at all*.

 

Your examples of leaving out Nebulon-B or personal shields make zero sense.  With vehicles there is a scale built in, and they can easily be compared to one another.  Personal shields can be compared to the defensive effects of other equipment.  Heavy clothing can be compared to laminate armour, light blasters can be compared to heavy repeaters.  These things are fixed in the game because they don't change.  In short, because of the game structure, all the things you mentioned as arbitrary are in fact not arbitrary at all.

 

Not so with characters.  FFG has no idea how people run their games, how much XP is given, how long a campaign lasts, and what those issues might mean for how the story is framed.

 

What is blackly amusing here is that you don't realize that your argument is built on your own preference.

 

Nice projection.

[mouthymerc 4,483]

So? Just curious? How are they presented? Build as npcs normally or huilt as pcs?

[knasserII 2,557]

You've just argued that there isn't a defined "top" range for characters so you can't technically put the named NPCs at a place where they will always be at the top.

 

If you could see past your own preference, you'd notice that I also pointed out there is no "middle".  There is only a bottom, and beyond that there is very little to go on.  When it comes to comparing characters to NPCs, there is no viable scale.  It has nothing to do with wanting Darth Vader to always be at the top, and everything to do with not having a way to scale him *at all*.

There doesn't need to be a "middle" either. You're still arguing from a premise that doesn't hold true for everyone else. You're saying you can't have the named NPCs because it's impossible to scale them to the PCs, yet I have no need to do so. What makes an NPC impossible to scale against PCs that might vary by experience, yet stormtroopers, Tie-pilots, Hutt gangsters, inquisitors we can all have stats for. You're still working from the premise that you have to base a named NPCs stats around the PCs' abilities. It doesn't make a difference whether you're arguing that they have to be high above the PCs or middle or bottom compared to them. It's a non-issue for those of us who want to use the named characters as is, rather than think they have to be relative to PCs. I don't say a stormtrooper has to be adjusted up or down depending on how much XP the PCs have, so why should Han Solo?

 

Not so with characters.  FFG has no idea how people run their games, how much XP is given, how long a campaign lasts, and what those issues might mean for how the story is framed.

Again, this only makes sense as an argument when one assumes that named characters must be calculated compared to a particular PC group. Your argument is based solely on your own assumptions.

 

What is blackly amusing here is that you don't realize that your argument is built on your own preference.

 

Nice projection.

No, it isn't. Your argument is true only under your preference that a named character should be powered relative to the PCs. It does not hold true if one regards them as independent things. Which is what I stated. Point out where an argument I have made contains assumptions that are not universally true.

Edited April 5, 2015 by knasserII

[knasserII 2,557]

So? Just curious? How are they presented? Build as npcs normally or huilt as pcs?

As NPCs, undoubtedly. To build them as PCs would make them incredibly fiddly to manage by the GM.

[Vixen Icaza 317]

Mouthymerc you clearly are not interested in what anyone else thinks in this matter. You feel we should have NPCs and will take no opinion that is opposite to your own I have made my points here. Both how I feel about stats for the film chars and why I feel your argument that a major npc is is equivelent to a generic NPC/item is invalid.

As an additional I would like to add that I would like to see some of the Lesser NPC characters that are important in the universe but have not been played out (as far as I know I do not have a lot of WEG and D20 stuff). Characters like Pellion, Thrawn, Mon Mothma etc... But for me Luke, Leia and others like them are kinda played out.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Vixen Icaza

[mouthymerc 4,483]

Unfortunately, beyond the novelty of having such characters statted out not many people see an immediate need for them, including FFG. I think we will continue to see them represented much like Lando in JoY, but beyond that nothing more comprehensive.

[Josep Maria 685]

Personally I would feel satisfied with those "Lando Style stats"

Edited April 5, 2015 by Josep Maria

[mouthymerc 4,483]

Mouthymerc you clearly are not interested in what anyone else thinks in this matter.

Yes, well, I am an ornery bastard.

[venkelos 568]

I know my biggest gripe with statted NPCs, a thing I usually support (thank you Forgotten Realms 3.0/3.5) is that once you commit a character to stats, that's it. Something else comes along, a new rule, new power, new prestige class, and it's THEIR thing, now you have to just tack it onto them, and it looks funny, or readjust the whole thing, to wedge it in, losing other stuff somebody thought they should have (**** you Forgotten Realms 3.0/3.5). An example of that, though obviously not this system, would be Fzoul Chembryll. The High Priest of the Lord of Tyrants is a pretty beefy character, just coming under the epic cutoff, with some god-granted stuff that actually pushes him a little bit over that. Not bad, till the Dreadmaster PrC came out, near the end of 3.5. This is the flavor PrC for Bane's clerics, and his High Priest doesn't have it. What's more, he doesn't meet the prereqs for it, so you need to drop off one or two of his feats, for other ones, and readjust his Cleric levels for Dreadmaster, or assume the most powerful follower of that god lacks his PrC. Both are irritating. Saga did it, too, with so many books refusing to reference each other, so numerous characters were denied their special things, because those things were not printed yet, or in another book, not their one, or the core.

 

Also, at what point do you stat them? Farm kid Luke? ESB? NJO? Master Skywalker departing with his son? Play some of the Rogue Trader stuff FFG made, and see if you like their pregens. They are almost all built as if "baby's first adventure", worried that, with no set order, they don't know what time you'll bump into them, so they'd better be bare minimum, but then your group is NOT, and you steamroll them. You, the GM, will probably need to bulk them up, write up some flunkies, beef up their ship, maybe tack on an escort, and then you've pretty much done all the work; what good was that low-end stat block for, by the time you were done.

 

I mean, I certainly like having the stat blocks for some NPCs. This system makes my head hurt every time I try to figure out how it is meant to work, with weird symbols, strange rule sets (at least to someone whose been playing d20 or pool d10 for the last 15 years), so the idea of having some "professionally made" NPC blocks, with specific character's specific tricks mapped out, sort of giving me an idea of how to make them work, is great, but most of these NPCs are built hodge podge, without the restrictions a PC might have, so just dropping a heap of rules and flotsam, and saying "Darth Vader" on it, might not be so helpful, even if you do get past the "if it has stats, I can surpass it" idea (you know what level Elminster technically is? Well, i guess if you get one level higher, maybe you're a more powerful wizard than FRCS's "most powerful wizard"?)

 

If nothing else, this is also the beta. Maybe a few of the big NPCs will get some love in the real book, if only a bit of it, as guidlines. They aren't built like you or I, so the GM might as well customize them to the group, anyway. Do you want Vader the lightblender? Do you want Vader the ace pilot? It MIGHT be silly to give him both, but he is both, and you might just have some notes for each "form" of him, to use as you see need.

Edited April 16, 2015 by venkelos

[Greymere 125]

I have no issue with getting a splatbook with attributes/skills/talents for characters from the Movies, Shows, Books, comics etc...  It would not anger me or make me create a character capable of killing the Emperor with ease, truth be told the other EU characters are background characters and events for the games characters not the featured storyline.

 

I would say though, it is a low priority for me as I would rather see more species/ships/equipment/specializations/planets/droids first.

[borithan 237]

 

I have to say.  I vehemently disagree with ALL of you.  I really liked how WotC did stats of the characters and had a book dedicated to that sort of thing.  I am a lifelong Star Wars fan and love comparing the characters.  You can still have your own interpretation if you want.  Nothing is stopping you.

 

The difference is the system though. In D6 you could max-out and pile on dice codes and pretty much cover all your bases. In WotC, as a D&D derivative, you could just put a character of legend at max level and get something in the ballpark. In this system the playing field is just too level. The likes of Luke, or Chewie, or Boba can't be presented as the gods among men that you could present them as in the past. A lucky turn of shooting with the right weapons and even Mandalore the Flatulent himself can go down like a chump even at the hands of otherwise starter level characters, something that in D6 and D20 was nearly impossible.

 

D6 Darth Vader (or truthfully any Jedi) had a certain major flaw; Grenades. Aside from throwing themselves across the battlefield willy nilly they couldn't do anything about them RAW. And Darth's Dodge, while respectable, was not through the roof (as he was expected to use his ridiculous lightsaber skills for defence... which couldn't do anything useful to grenades), so to be certain to survive would have to primarily dodge about without much movement or attacks. Discovered this while running d6 recently. Decided to have Darth Make a bit of a cameo (he was primarily there to remove a Jedi Master NPC who had been mentoring the PC Jedi), and then the players pulled out a grenade, at which point I looked at his right up, his force powers and discovered there was no RAW way to deal with them reliably. Obviously non RAW you could rule he could use telekinesis to deflect them before they come anywhere near him, but there is not any RAW way to do so (Telekinesis could only be used in your own action, not as a reaction). They ran out of grenades, and they were no where near killing him, but they were not actually that far off knocking him out...

Aside from this though, yeah, he was a holy terror and could just one shot players (and whole parties if they were kind enough to stand in reach of his lightsaber).

"If you stat is then you can kill it" is a useful mantra to think by, and any official write ups will always have gaps that players will inevitably find, either deliberately or by accident. Statting famous characters should only be done if PCs would be expected to best them in a contest.

[Jereru 171]

Well, I don't think the PCs defeating Vader instead of Luke doing it (or they helping him do it) is a bad Campaing Finale. It would depend on what kind of campaign you have in mind.

 

Spoiler alert: yes, Luke kills Vader.

[venkelos 568]

I'm really hoping he doesn't come back as a clone in the next movie Vader is great, but I don't need him back that badly. They torpedoed way to much of my joyed EU, because of "dumb stuff like that" for me to accept them pulling that, and not whining. 

 

I'm going to fall back on enough people dispute "official" write-ups, both because of absent content, typos (in Revised, the Emperor had Skill Emphasis (Influence), which is a feat, itself, and no Force Sensitivity), and such, and simply a lack of agreement on details. In a lot of ways, with a game that doesn't build its NPCs on the same framework we build our characters, it's almost as good to just know they'll see Vader, and say "Brawn 6, Lightsaber 5, FR 5", and whatever else YOU feel he needs, and just run with it. If you had to build him like a full character, like the players do, then it would be nice to have it done ahead of time, maybe by someone who knows all the inner rules well, but for this, jsut slapping some stuff together seems as fine. That way, if you invent stuff, or use it different in your game, you don't have to super-tweak the existing write-up; just make what works for you.

[Lord Zack 90]

Well, I don't think the PCs defeating Vader instead of Luke doing it (or they helping him do it) is a bad Campaing Finale. It would depend on what kind of campaign you have in mind.

 

Spoiler alert: yes, Luke kills Vader.

 

No he didn't... Unless your talking about something other than Return of the Jedi.

[Jereru 171]

Yeah, sorry, I had "defeat" in mind (actually I used "defeat" in the first sentence). Too much sniffing glue. But you get what I mean, I hope.

[capnhayes 28]

I recently tried to Stat out all the Characters from the movie, starting with the Force users. I actually came up with the idea of using the stats from d6 version. Taking their highest die code for their Force abilities (Control, Sense, and Alter), and using that as a reference point for the maximum number of potential Force Points that could be attained from a roll. Rounding up to the nearest whole number. So Luke Skywalker's highest die code was 10D, in ROTJ. Which means 10 potential Force Points or simply Force Rating of 5. BTW, The Emperor had a Force Rating of 8, Yoda was 7. I know it may not seem like a lot. But considering what the characters did on screen, this would cover it. As for the rest of it is completely up to you. But I think just figuring out how high of a Force Rating they would have is biggest hurdle. I mean I'm sure they all had max ranks in lightsaber! But I think it at least gives you a base line start point. Any thoughts? Dumb idea or not? Also any way to improve the formula?

[venkelos 568]

One little thing I note, especially with Star Wars, and its various RPG iterations, is one has to decide what they want the NPC to be good at, and with the skills, feats every few levels, and level progressions, probably stick to it. When I was young, Yoda was different. There was NO good reason to think he was some omnipotent, lightsaber-muppet, god of war. His size, his age, and various other traits led me to believe he WASN'T probably very good with a lightsaber, but he was VERY good with the Force, and 800 years of study, contemplation, and a personality shaped for it made him very powerful. The Emperor, too. When I was a kid, I don't actually believe that the fluff supported Palpatine as being a Sith, any more than Boba Fett was a real Mandalorian, or that other one even existed (cash grab). He had the Force, and he was evil, with an apprentice, but that seemed to be it. Like Yoda, I never saw him as some divine duelist, able to topple three Jedi masters in almost as many seconds. He was powerful in the Force, and had the collective work of others, plus the deep wells of the Dark Side, to make him mighty. He could see into the future further, and with more clarity, than others, and he amassed an army to fight for him.

 

Why I'm babbling: saying what a character is good at is one thing, but having to use the RPG structure to reflect it, is different. Vader isn't as powerful with the Force, due to his mechanical augments, but he's very good with the saber. Oh, what's that? He's also an amazing pilot? Oh, so I need to use Pilot as one of his skills, and give him several feats that reflect this "better than most" capability, maybe even a level or two of Ace Pilot, to reflect his greatness behind the stick. Yoda and the Emperor are mighty mystics. What, you ALSO want them to be unparred lightsaber badasses? Grrr. You always have to decide what they'll be good at, so that you can divvy your resources adequately, even if some of those additions will almost never be relevant (Is Vader even going near a fighter ship this campaign? No? Sucks to be him.) Maybe it's not so big a thing in this system, where you can spend XP, instead of level up, and where the NPCs don't have to follow the same lines we would, but building "official stat blocks" often demands a lot of agreement that isn't always hard to come by.

 

Another TRIVIAL matter; what books do you use. Again, not a problem here, as much, but Saga, this game's predecessor, loathed mentioning its own varied works, terrified you hadn't fallen into the Pokemon trap of "gotta buy'em all!", so if the feat/talent/power in question wasn't in the main book, or the one you were holding, no character was likely to have it. It took till almost the last few before three of their books I can think of actually acknowledged that they had ever written other material. So, you have to decide what they have, and make it fit.

 

Okay, I'm done rambling. Sorry if there wasn't really any point in that whole mess. It might be harder to get PCs in this game to have all their bells and whistles, but I suppose NPCs really can just have only, and all, the little candies the GM wants them to.

[AldousSnow 822]

In 11 years of running Star Wars games, from d6 through d20, and FFG, I've not once used a "main character" from the movies. Vaders name was spoken once or twice, but thats it. I personally find it way more fun to stat out a Dengar or Bib Fortuna for the heck of it, and never use them, then to flip through a book of stats I'll never use.

[Aluminium Falcon 521]

Personally, I don't desire an official write-up of the famous characters nor am I against it.

I have seen the godly write-ups of past games that seem to meet our esteem for the characters rather than their observable abilities*...  but that doesn't mean that FFG would fall to those same errors.

It could be fun, would very likely be lucrative...  on the ther hand, it might also start a "pigeon-holing process" that would be counter to the creative end user vibe that FFG seems to want to foster...  on a third hand, non-creative types would be happier and creative types would do as they chose anyhow.

Anyhoo, I think what might be getting lost is that the question of the thread title "Why no stats for the main characters?", while related to, is distinct from "Should they publish stats for the main characters?"

I am genuinely curious about something, however. To those who want official stats for the main characters: What concrete function would that serve to the game?
Leave out the entertainment value of such a thing, as I kind of already agree on that... Also leave out "as a guide to create original PCs/NPCs" as I kind of already don't agree with that and suspect it would lead to simple mimicry.**



 

 

 

* I am of the opinion that Han's most useful ability is making the best of the advantages during his (many) failed rolls
Also, the EU had a habit of the same, making their version of the characters grander than they originally seemed out of affection, which only fueled RPGers

** Those that love Star Wars enough to want to "meet" its characters certainly have an understanding of those characters, already

Edited May 18, 2015 by Aluminium Falcon

[GreyJedi 44]

I have to agree with the folks that don't think the game needs official stats for the main characters. All it does it influence the players (GMs included in the broad definition of 'players' of this game) to fight the main characters. There is no point to this. They shouldn't be able to influence the outcome of the stories unless it is a alternate storyline and if that's the case then just make the stats for them in THAT storyline. Simple.

 

I have a young jedi in the empire era that wants to face Vader and is doing everything he can to cause that meeting. Unabashed use of force powers and light saber, doesn't care who knows he's a jedi, so I've finally decided to let him meet Vader. He thinks it's going to be an 'awesome' fight. What he is actually going to get is a short and simple description:

 

"Vader emerges from his shuttle, his dark cape flowing behind him. He immediately senses the force and raises his arm to you. You draw your light saber and for moment you realize you didn't intende to do this. That is the last thing you ever think as Vader forces you to jab your own saber into your skull and wiggle it around for a few seconds. In the end you're not even supporting your own weight anymore, Vader is doing that and finally releases his puppet to fall to the ground completely lifeless."

 

Make a new character, and not a force sensitive this time.

[Grayfax 991]

Personally, don't want statted characters.  As others mention, it makes people compare their characters to them and/or want to kill them.  If I were running the campaign, the characters might hear names of a few in news or reports, but meet them? Nah... that is a different movie.  Give me unknowns with stats and stories, don't give me icons.  Icons draw people to the game, but portraying one is always going to come off poorly and demeans their legend in players minds, even if it is unintentional on your part.

[dxanders 123]

I'm not ruling out the possibility of statting out some core trilogy characters, but I'm also running a game that plays fairly fast and loose with the canon. Early game ideas included the players working as a Suicide Squad under the direction of a Vader lackey. If I stat a character like Vader out, I'm taking into account that the players might kill him and treating that as a proper moment for it to really set in that events are diverging very far from the established timeline.

 

I'm of the impression that Lucas' story is told, but I think that also lends flexibility to my campaign. Things can go severely off course from where they'd be in the original trilogy and that's fine, because it's an entirely different story.

 

That said, the heroes of the OT don't need ridiculous stat blocks. It's not like Han, Leia, and Luke were exceptionally powerful. I bet you could mostly build the characters at the beginning of the trilogy using starting char gen (Obi-Wan as an NPC, of course, and maybe some extra XP for Han).

Edited July 6, 2015 by dxanders

[Space Monkey 124]

I'd be happy with a "Living" PDF for download. As new rules and such come out for the various products, the stats in this document can be twee(le)ked and added to as needed, keeping the stats up to date at all times.

 

Hell, it's not as if you HAVE to download it if you don't want it, but then its not as if you have to buy a book if they release one.