There’s a “Burning Rogues” section in the book with stat blocks for various NPC types that’s pretty useful.
It’s also pretty easy to eyeball NPC stats on the fly. Just make note of what you decide and keep it moving forward.
Generally, few NPCs warrant any sort of full burn. Just major players, relationships, etc.
NPCs can be as simple as a Guard with B4s for every stat and skill you think a Guard should have. No prep at all for that!
For example:
Peasant farmer B3s across the board
Guard - B4s across the board, maybe a B3 Will.
Captain - B5s across the board
Anything higher probably means you have an important NPC. These require a burn, but this is made soooo easy by using the online burner. The base character can take 10 mins, with more time to develop BITs for it.
ok thank you
All in proportion to their importance. I don’t think this is necessarily spelled out, but you can get by with not writing down much for an NPC. Their Beliefs and Instincts are really the most important part there.
After that: hand out 3s and a few 4s in their skills and stats; pick a single lifepath and use those skills as a guide for what to give the NPC.
If it’s a major NPC (a character’s mentor who figures heavily into the story, or a companion NPC), give them a full character burn. It’s also easy enough to simply “upgrade” an NPC from one category to another.
Character Burning is definitely an enjoyable experience: out of anything, it’s closest to how Traveller does it. (I’ve also heard that some of the Warhammer 40K games, like Rogue Trader, have a lifepath system as well.) You spend the time tracking your character’s progress through a setting, and then figure out what they picked up through their experiences in the world thus far.
Some advice:
I’d wait until you have the book, read the rules, and start with simple cases of X vs. X to get used to it. It’s very different from any other game I’ve seen, and you might fumble a bit and need rules checks the first couple of times, but when you get used to it it’s not bad at all and moves quickly—faster than D&D, Shadowrun, or World of Darkness combat, to compare the big-name RPGs. (I can’t compare GURPS; I’ve never played it.) Then you can see if you want to turn it into grand melees. I rarely do, though. For large-scale combat it’s usually mooks, not important opposition, and a single-roll system fits better.
Starting up a campaign is a big event. Usually the first session involves little or no play. Instead you set up the big picture and situation, do whatever world building you’re going to do, and then burn characters who can work together (or not, if you’re so inclined) and set up Beliefs and Instincts. Getting characters who gel with the game, the situation, and each other is the big task. Fortunately burning characters is really fun, and especially with tools like the online character burner the mechanics are very fast. It’s the roleplay part that takes time. You can skip it, but then your campaign will suffer; BW really runs on Beliefs, not GM-made plot, and trying to run a railroad will make everything fall apart. You can definitely have a broad strokes plot in mind, but the specifics will depend on character Beliefs. That’s because that’s how players express areas of interest. You’ll be amazed how much more engaged players are when the game is about exactly what they want it to be about!
Burning characters takes some time, but most NPCs aren’t characters. I differ a little bit from many others, but I almost never have NPCs roll unless they are central characters in the plot. Guards don’t have stats, really, unless I know they’ll be in a Fight, and guards aren’t important enough to merit a Fight. Instead, they’re obstacles. Ob 3 Weapons to kill them. Ob 2 Stealthy to sneak around them. That might be it. If you want stats, it could be something like B4 Observation and B4 Spear. Similarly, an NPC who needs convincing just needs Will to set the obstacle for Persuasion or another skill test. I’ve had mentors with no stats at all. No, they didn’t get much time in the limelight, but their role was to deliver advice and information. The PCs could do with it as they wished. What would the stats be for? If PCs asked for information I decided if the mentor knew it or didn’t without needing a bunch of wises. NPC knowledge checks are even more boring than PC knowledge checks!
Think of it this way: if a person is really just a roadblock, how difficult a roadblock are you aiming for? That’s the Ob you want, so don’t waste time making stats. Declare that obstacle for the relevant test and keep moving. Anything more is a waste if the guy is killed or circumvented, and if he isn’t then the consequences are whatever is appropriate for failure, not what a stat block says.
Even recurring NPCs in my games often don’t have stats. I’ll make Beliefs first and try to keep track of the stats I’ve previously made on the fly. Only a major antagonist will get a full burn, and even then often not from the beginning.
Just to make things more clear for seomeone discovering BW,
Do you mean that you avoid having NPCs doing direct tests, or also versus tests ? Because versus tests, e.g. Persuasion vs Persuasion are very different from direct tests (e.g. Persuasion vs an implicit Will).
I mean I, as GM, almost never touch dice except during Bloody Versus, Duel of Wits, Range and Cover, and Fight. NPCs don’t roll social skills against Will; I tell the players what they’re suggesting, arguing, shouting, or wheedling, and the players do as they wish. Even if the NPCs are acting I ask the PCs how they react, and then the PCs are usually the ones who roll against an obstacle representing how difficult it is to accomplish what they want (say, fade into the crowd with Inconspicuous as the bellowing merchant looks for those rotten thieves!)
There are no NPC simple tests but a few versus tests that I keep. Haggling is one. Bloody Versus, as mentioned, is another. Persuasion isn’t one; if both sides have something they really want that’s usually DoW time. If it’s not important and they’re trying to persuade a third party then the NPC’s convincingness sets the Ob to beat for the PCs, and the consequence of failure is the NPC getting his or her way. As I said, if the NPC is convincing a PC it’s not a test at all, it’s a question of what the player wants to do.
Marune, in our group NPCs don’t have stats written down before you meet them. The GM assigns them stats by a rule of thumb when the stats become necessary.
The rule of thumb is that for stats, 3-4 is average. Does this character seem like he’d have a low-average Forte (She’s a weaver who spends all day in front of the loom, or he’s an effete nobleman who prefers scented hankies to horsemanship and hunting)? Then it’s a 3. Does he seem like he’d have high-average Will (She’s a mother to two boys, or he’s a veteran shopkeeper who haggles in the market all day)? Then it’s a 4.
For a skill, the character will only have it if it’s appropriate to the character’s lifestyle, which usually means his profession. A professional guard would have Observation, but a pirate wouldn’t. A shopkeeper would have haggle, but a miner wouldn’t. Almost nobody will have Logistics. If the character does have the skill, how much? 1-2 for a beginner or apprentice, 3-4 for a journeyman, 5-6 for a renowned master. So your character picks a fight with a guard? That guard will likely have 3 or 4 in Spear or whatever he’s carrying. You’re kicking around peasant militiamen? 1 or 2 in Spear. You picked a fight with Don Vicci, the steely-eyed champion of the Duke? He’s going to hack you up with a 6 in Sword.
Hub, I’m up for a forum Fight in the Arena if you like. It’ll take us about a week if you post pretty often. We can use example characters from the books and you can see how Fight goes.
@Ten of Swords : I’m not the OP, I just wanted Wayfarer to explain a bit more his reasoning on NPCs’ tests.
I understand avoiding NPC simple tests, but I’m not sure about cutting down on (obviously rolled in the open) versus tests with NPCs .
Wayfarer said: “NPCs don’t roll social skills against Will; I tell the players what they’re suggesting, arguing, shouting, or wheedling, and the players do as they wish.”
I see how you could play this way, but I’ve never considered it. I don’t think there’s anything in the rules that states this. If you look at NPCs as just another character in the story (controlled by the GM), why shouldn’t they make social versus tests or social tests versus will to influence the PCs actions? They can certainly do this with DoW, why shouldn’t they do it with the simpler mechanics?
Is this one of those “best practices” that somehow didn’t make it into the rules or Adventure Burner?
Because mathematically it’s equivalent but less random. Two dice average one success, or 1 Ob. But not rolling means the Ob is static, with a couple of advantages. Firstly, less randomness to make hard stuff unexpectedly easy or easy stuff unexpectedly hard. Secondly, knowing the Ob means the players know exactly where they stand and whether they want to spend artha. Thirdly, it’s ever so slightly faster for one person to roll than for two to roll.
It’s completely a matter of taste, of course.
Edited to add: Now I can’t remember if the social idea is from the core, AdBu, or picked up somewhere else entirely. Possibly an extrapolation from the line about no “detect lies” skill. But here’s my interpretation: BW is all about fighting for your Beliefs, choosing your actions and facing the consequences. If NPCs can force the PCs to behave a certain way by their tests they’re removing agency from the players’ hands, which is not a good thing. And because the GM makes up those skills, the GM can potentially force PCs to do just about anything. DoW is different: both sides have something at stake, you usually get a compromise, and you can choose not to engage. That might be bad, but walking away is an option.
“Lord Ostvel is a smooth negotiator. He has B7 Persuasion and B6 Will, and he wants you to go do his dirty work. Yes, he’ll probably win the test. You have to do what he says; you’re convinced.” Somehow that seems lame to me. I’d rather just have him wheedle and cajole and threaten and bribe and then see what the PCs do freely. Because PCs and NPCs don’t play by the same rules outside of the specific systems. I also can’t have an assassin roll B8 Stealthy to murder PCs in their sleep—or worse, Say Yes—because it’s bad.
Extreme examples, granted, but I don’t like taking control out of the players’ hands, so I don’t. It’s also a matter of taste and YMMV.
I’ve faced off against NPCs in all manner of tests, Versus simple or Bloody, DoW, Fight, everything. I’ve had NPCs pown me with a social test, and I’ve done the same back. I’ve had NPCs try to persuade me or intimidate me or lie to me, and I’ve let them suck on my Will like a chicken bone when I didn’t have a good stake of my own.
So, tastes differ.
appreciate the feedback guys, i’ll have to mull this one over. anyone else care to chime in? although i don’t want to veer off the original post too much.
I never make simple social tests against a player’s Will. Either it’s a versus test or a Duel of Wits or nothing.
I allow NPCs to test in that manner. Of course to do so the player has made 3 choices.
It has been very rare for it to happen though.
Its not heavy handed. The game ebbs and flows between encounters. If its not important, or nothing is really at stake, you just say yes and move on. Let the players use downtime for practice, etc.
And there is not much to set beyond, here is the Ob, here is the failure condition.