Denethor write-up (redone)

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Ineti
I believe Doug or Jeff mentioned either here or on the Decipher boards that the attributes were arbitrarily picked for the NPCs. I don't think it's fair to cut them down to using the pick method and going from there.

Why on earth not? The whole concept of Advancements as a way to compare the relative power of characters completely breaks down if you don't start with a level playing field. You may as well not even track Advancements if you include randomly generated stats as part of the equation.

To use an extreme example, a character with all 12 ATTs and 23 Advancements is waaaay more powerful than a character with all 7 ATTs and 23 Advancements. We're not talking about a little difference here, it's a huge difference by a magnitude of 200% or more.

Players and Narrators like to compare the characters in the their chronicle to the "official" versions of the heroes (and villains) from the books and movies. The only possible way to make this an "apples to apples" comparison is to use the pick method of character creation for all characters. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels. Heck, I wouldn't even consult the official stats or bother to keep track of my own players' Advancemets if randomly rolled stats are figured in. I mean, I'd still track their XP, so that they were able to make a pick every 1000 pts or whatever, but, really, why track the number of cumulative Advancements? Without a common standard they're ultimately arbitrary and meaningless.

T.

[Ineti]

I don't see it the way you do. Comparing a LOTR PC to Legolas or Aragorn is like comparing a Star Wars PC to Luke Skywalker or Han Solo. IMO, it shouldn't be done. I know players do it, but it's generally futile, IMO. Taking an iconic character from a novel or movie and trying to enumerate them stat-wise seems silly to me.

In essence, you're right in that the write-ups for the key characters can be considered meaningless--how many narrators are going to have Aragorn or Legolas drop in on their parties and do anything that would require that NPC to roll stuff? I mean, if I had Aragorn travel with my party, he'd whip up on everything and completely show up the PCs if I handled it poorly. I won't do that.

Your mileage clearly varies on this issue.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Ineti
I don't see it the way you do. Comparing a LOTR PC to Legolas or Aragorn is like comparing a Star Wars PC to Luke Skywalker or Han Solo. IMO, it shouldn't be done. I know players do it, but it's generally futile, IMO. Taking an iconic character from a novel or movie and trying to enumerate them stat-wise seems silly to me.

In essence, you're right in that the write-ups for the key characters can be considered meaningless--how many narrators are going to have Aragorn or Legolas drop in on their parties and do anything that would require that NPC to roll stuff? I mean, if I had Aragorn travel with my party, he'd whip up on everything and completely show up the PCs if I handled it poorly. I won't do that.

That may well be, but my group is currently traveling with Legolas to the Council of Elrond! In fact, they will help him make the perilous journey intact. Surely you don't think he crossed the Misty Mountains all by his lonesome? So what's a poor Narrator to do? I need his stats, and all of 'em. I've had other "named" NPCs make appearances in my chronicle as well, including Thranduil, Grimbeorn, Gollum, and soon, the entire Council of Elrond. Now admittedly, I won't need every single stat for every single character--not by a longshot--but I never know just which skills may be called upon and which won't, so the more complete picture I have of them the better. And if Decipher didn't intend for players to interact with the named characters, why produce the FELLOWSHIP sourcebook? Clearly, those who wish to actively include the heroes of Middle-earth in their chronicles have been encouraged by the product line.

As for comparing NPC's to named characters, I think its a useful way to gauge the relative strenth of a characters. For example, if I'm developing a villain for my chronicle and I know that Saruman is undoubtedly one of the most powerful wizards in the world, and that he has 65 Advancements, I know to make my villain no more than, say 45 Advancements. I don't think that's silly or futile. In fact, it's a very useful tool to have, IMO, and it seems to be the whole raison d'etre for Advancements in the first place.

From a player's standpoint, published Advancements provide a sense of perspective on their own ability and a worthy goal to shoot for. "Legolas has 47 advancements and I have 8. I've got a lot of work to do!" It can become a real, tangible goal in a game often dominated by abstractions.

Although we can debate whether it should be done, Decipher has sort of made it a moot point by providing published stats including Advancements which are intended to serve as meaningful benchmarks. That genie's out of the bottle. I'm just saying if they're going to provide 'em at all, they should remove the randomness and account for everything.

Finally, I have to ask: If you think its silly to enumerate stats for iconic characters from the novels or movies stat-wise, then why did you work so hard to provide us with the lovely version of Radagast?


T.

[Ineti]

Originally posted by Taliesin
why did you work so hard to provide us with the lovely version of Radagast?

Simple. Providing something people wanted to see. I had read several posts on these and the Decipher boards asking about Radagast stats, and at the time, I had the time to thrown him together. I think the character is interesting, even though we don't see much of him, so I made up stats for him.

I don't think I even bothered with an advancement log for him. If I had to go back and compare his stats to the number of advancements I gave him, it would probably be off. I think he came out pretty well, but I know it's only my own interpretation.

*shrug*