So I've just got the game, I've been reading these forums for a week, and one striking thing is missing that I can't find anyone has done.

Why has no-one statted up the major NPCs from the movies and other media ,yet? I'm too new to the system to have a proper feel for the numbers yet, otherwise I'd take a stab at it. And I know we might be missing the odd rule, but since when did that stop anyone?

What stats should the big guy have? What about Yoda, Mace, Luke or the walking carpet? Aside from being fun to put some of these people in the game, they'd really help people get a feel for the numbers.

Thoughts? Links? Off the wall comments about echinoderms?

In The Jewel of Yavin appears the stats for Lando Calrissian. The developers have stated him pretty low to my taste, but there you have your first one.

I'm glad they aren't stated, because ultimately someone will claim to have killed them. Also, I would never run, or want to be involved in, a campaign where the movie characters made a showing (other than maybe on a holovid or too distant to matter). The galaxy is too vast for that kind of boring lack of vision. <-- puts on flame suit

Well, part of the problem is that we really don't have the whole picture as far as folks like that go. We've only gotten a glimpse of the Force with no idea what new and interesting talents that Force & Destiny are going to bring to the table.

Plus, as I've seen in the WotC forums "Build the Character" threads* back when the Saga Edition portion of the forums existed, there's going to be a lot of dissent on what stats each character should have. Just from skimming through the Roll Call section of the Atomic Think Tank for Mutants & Masterminds I've seen a lot of different ways to stat-up the same superhero based on how the owner of a given thread views that character.

*I was pretty amazed at how civil those threads could be, particularly in light of the venom and bile that got hurled around other portions of that forum.

I'd say the only reason I haven't done so, for fun's sake mind you--not for use in a game, is because we still don't have Force and Destiny or the rest of the career sourcebooks. For instance, I wouldn't want to make Han until I've seen what is in the Smuggler book, or make Boba Fett until the Bounty Hunter book comes out.

I'm fine with major characters making a cameo IF APPROPRIATE. For instance, Leia giving a motivational speech before a dangerous mission in Age of Rebellion.

I wouldn't want a campaign where you oppose a major villain though. You risk the PCs winning (though any GM worth his salt realizes that the rules provide ways for major nemesis to live regardless of what the dice say) and that doesn't make for a good Star Wars experience. Darth Vader doesn't lose (except to Luke, and the PCs aren't Luke).

If the players can beat Darth Vader, then they beat Darth Vader. If one of them marries Han Solo, they marry Han Solo. More likely, they will lose against Darth Vader, but I'm fine with that too. I love the idea of the PCs running scared because they realise that Vader is on board the vessel they just infiltrated. But I play fair - I always play fair. That means if an NPC exists in the game, I give them stats. It's not fair to my players to just handwave NPCs as the GM's pets and decide whether they win or lose. For players' choices to be meaningful, I have to make my NPCs real, not a conduit for the GM's story decisions.

So if Vader or someone is in the game, they need stats otherwise I do not feel I am being fair to the players. And what is Star Wars without Vader and other people from the movies? A smaller subset of the stories you could tell otherwise. It may not be the stories you want to tell, but choice is good.

Plus, as I wrote - I'm new to this system and it would be useful to see what known characters translate into. Plus, it's quite frankly fun. A Star Destroyer is pretty much an auto-win, but still people want to see the stats for it, do we not?

I'm glad they aren't stated, because ultimately someone will claim to have killed them.

And probably have had fun with their victory. That's up to them. Stats don't mean you have to use them and someone in another game elsewhere in the world saying: "our party went up against Vader and we managed to win" doesn't (or shouldn't) impinge on your fun.

Also, I would never run, or want to be involved in, a campaign where the movie characters made a showing (other than maybe on a holovid or too distant to matter). The galaxy is too vast for that kind of boring lack of vision. <-- puts on flame suit

What stats should the big guy have? What about Yoda, Mace, Luke or the walking carpet? Aside from being fun to put some of these people in the game, they'd really help people get a feel for the numbers.

I mostly think this should be left to different GMs to individualize as-needed for the events of their game. The biggest problem with a stat block is it is a snapshot of a character at a particular time, not an accurate portrayal of the character over their life. Battle of Endor Luke is much different from Yuuzan Vong War Luke; a given set of stats will probably only cover one of those with accuracy, and one is lucky (there will inevitably be arguments about it, of course). Fortunately there aren't levels in this game, just pure stats and Specs, so that makes contention on "why does he have levels of X and not Y" less likely, on top of the fact that NPCs explicitly don't follow PC build rules.

And to prevent player expectations that stats in books should be taken as 100% accurate when that character is later used by a given GM. That's really obnoxious.

I'd say you should feel free to take a stab at it for whatever context your game requires. I played in a game where we went up against IG-88 and while the players didn't know the stats, it was pretty scary and well-done by the GM.

I had Dengar make an appearance as opposition in my last game. The players didn't mind a cameo from a D-list canon character.

But I play fair - I always play fair. That means if an NPC exists in the game, I give them stats. It's not fair to my players to just handwave NPCs as the GM's pets and decide whether they win or lose. For players' choices to be meaningful, I have to make my NPCs real, not a conduit for the GM's story decisions.

I'm honestly not sure what this means. The players have no idea what stats a character should have. What's "fair" or "unfair" about stating them? And I guess I have to disagree entirely with the last bit: if there is a story to tell, then the NPCs *are* the conduit...that's the entire point of having them. If you are sandboxing only, then maybe I could understand your comment, but if there is a plot then clearly the NPCs have goals and abilities that are intended to drive player decisions.

Someone else is telling Vader, and Solo, and Skywalker's stories. I would prefer to take my players though a game where they tell their own, and develop their own Nemeses. I agree with whaforg in that the galaxy is simply too vast to not explore unknown characters. I also enjoy making my own story and plot, it's part of why I just don't bother with canned adventures either.

In The Jewel of Yavin appears the stats for Lando Calrissian. The developers have stated him pretty low to my taste, but there you have your first one.

Even in this case, he's statted up only in his capacity as Baron Administrator and how the players would encounter him in the context of Cloud City. It is specific in the description that even as presented, he's not a full representation of what Lando Calrissian is in the capacity of the game, so its inevitable that he comes across as being statted low.

Even for someone who is statted low, he's still pretty formidable. He could lie to you, stick a "kick me" sign on your back, shake your hand, rob you blind at the Sabacc table, and you'd still think he's a swell guy.

It's strange to hear what people think the characters in the films should look like stat-wise. I must be odd in that I think they should look like moderately experienced PCs.

The presence of stats doesn't mean you have to use them, but the absence means other people can't.

Actually, the lack of stats means individual GMs can decide if or how they want named NPCs to be in their game by statting them as they choose. Their absence doesn't inhibit anyone.

I think FFG decided not the stat mains in order to allow GMs to upgun them to be appropriate challenges for whatever their party runs.

Darth Vader for a bunch of master munchkins and tacticians might be different for Darth Vader for a bunch of first-time gamers.

But I play fair - I always play fair. That means if an NPC exists in the game, I give them stats. It's not fair to my players to just handwave NPCs as the GM's pets and decide whether they win or lose. For players' choices to be meaningful, I have to make my NPCs real, not a conduit for the GM's story decisions.

I'm honestly not sure what this means. The players have no idea what stats a character should have. What's "fair" or "unfair" about stating them?

If I haven't decided in advance what an NPC is capable of, then I'm determining what they are as a response to what the players decide to do, how well they're doing, etc. That is inherently unfair to the players because rather than doing better or worse against the world or NPCs, I'm just normalizing everything around them. It's like seeing someone do well so I throw some extra weight on them so their successes don't stand out as much. Or if they're doing badly, I start weakening things to coddle them. In either case, I'm making player choices less meaningful and it's not fair to players to keep taking away from their successes by e.g. making an NPC increasingly powerful post-fact just because I want the players to have a harder time of it. My players have to be able to trust me that I'm not messing things around behind my screen just because I feel like it.

And I guess I have to disagree entirely with the last bit: if there is a story to tell, then the NPCs *are* the conduit...that's the entire point of having them.

When I wrote "a conduit of the GM's story decisions" I was saying that NPCs shouldn't be a tool for the GM to just force the story how they want. If an NPC has no stats, then when the players face that NPC and choose to fight her, I'm just deciding where the story goes - you win, you lose. The players have no choice in this and I'm just deciding on where the story will go. If the NPC has stats, then it's meaningful. I can choose that Vader has really terrifying combat skills which means he'll almost certainly win. But it's showing respect to my players that if they choose to fight him, they're at least engaging in something meaningful rather than have me just say: "you lose, Mike is killed, Sarah takes 3 wounds".

If you are sandboxing only, then maybe I could understand your comment, but if there is a plot then clearly the NPCs have goals and abilities that are intended to drive player decisions.

An NPC having stats does not negate them having goals and abilities to drive player decisions. I assume you don't skip giving stats to your non-name NPCs because they're "intended to drive player decisions". But you suddenly think this shouldn't apply to named NPCs.

The presence of stats doesn't mean you have to use them, but the absence means other people can't.

Actually, the lack of stats means individual GMs can decide if or how they want named NPCs to be in their game by statting them as they choose. Their absence doesn't inhibit anyone.

I'm inhibited. I'm new to the game, I'm short on time, and I'm interested to see what other people use for these NPCs. Stats make my life easier. "Inhibit" doesn't mean impossible. It means it discourages or makes harder. So yes, lack of stats inhibits people from using the named NPCs. I'd like to see such stats. They'd help me use these NPCs, they'd be instructive and they'd save me time. It's also a nice benchmark for the players to see that they're now equivalent to Han or Luke. And the presence of stats helps make the setting more real.

If the players can beat Darth Vader, then they beat Darth Vader. If one of them marries Han Solo, they marry Han Solo. More likely, they will lose against Darth Vader, but I'm fine with that too. I love the idea of the PCs running scared because they realise that Vader is on board the vessel they just infiltrated. But I play fair - I always play fair.

Commendable. On the other hand, if I managed to kill Darth Vader I'd be disappointed - it would mean my character wasn't in the Star Wars universe I wanted to play in.

If the players can beat Darth Vader, then they beat Darth Vader. If one of them marries Han Solo, they marry Han Solo. More likely, they will lose against Darth Vader, but I'm fine with that too. I love the idea of the PCs running scared because they realise that Vader is on board the vessel they just infiltrated. But I play fair - I always play fair.

Commendable. On the other hand, if I managed to kill Darth Vader I'd be disappointed - it would mean my character wasn't in the Star Wars universe I wanted to play in.

That's fair. But the chances of beating Vader are still probably pretty low and probably if this is your taste, you wouldn't engage Vader in combat anyway because it would be a lose-lose for you: He beats you, you die (or whatever). You beat him, you're unhappy. Ergo, you would do everything you could to avoid coming up against him.

However, it might be fun to have a round or two where you fight a desperate battle to survive against him whilst your rebel friends escape. Stats are useful for more than just kill or be killed extremes. Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.

You're not a Sith, are you? -.-

You're not a Sith, are you? -.-

No. Nooo!

No.

Nah.

Maaaaybe.

That's fair. But the chances of beating Vader are still probably pretty low and probably if this is your taste, you wouldn't engage Vader in combat anyway because it would be a lose-lose for you: He beats you, you die (or whatever). You beat him, you're unhappy. Ergo, you would do everything you could to avoid coming up against him.

However, it might be fun to have a round or two where you fight a desperate battle to survive against him whilst your rebel friends escape. Stats are useful for more than just kill or be killed extremes. Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.

I was talking to Josep Maria a while back about this exact situation. It came down to running (motivated by in-character terror) if my group could, but if we couldn't:

were Vader trying to kill us I know we'd be doing everything to stay alive. Grenades, flame, spray paint across the visor, Skuldugg more grenades on his person, groin shots, dirty tricks, possibly betrayal (I suspect at least one of us would try to flee amid chaos).

As players we'd know we couldn't win (we've seen the films, after all). As characters we'd have no choice.

Blood, spit, tears - it will not be pretty or clean when we die.

The presence of stats doesn't mean you have to use them, but the absence means other people can't.

Actually, the lack of stats means individual GMs can decide if or how they want named NPCs to be in their game by statting them as they choose. Their absence doesn't inhibit anyone.

That reason could also be applied to species, careers/specializations, talents, gear, vehicles/starships, and pretty much everything. Would not giving X-wings stats and expecting each GM to stat them however they choose be a good thing for the game? How about not giving Stormtroopers stats?

In all such cases, having stats provides a suggested game reference, and GMs are free to adjust that to what they want. If there are not stats, then there is no suggested reference, and the GM must create them from scratch. Being forced to do that work can inhibit enjoyment of the game.

We are talking about named NPCs, not equipment or other generic things. As has already been noted, there are too many variables or concepts for named NPCs for each GM or game. Even the one character done by FFG, Lando, is statted with the one adventure in mind, and is not considered a complete view.

I am not saying don't stat them. Rather than start a thread asking why there isn't a thread on statting named NPCs, why not start a thread for statting named NPCs? Then those who don't have time can pick and choose from the dozen or so Darth Vaders or Luke Skywalkers.

An NPC having stats does not negate them having goals and abilities to drive player decisions. I assume you don't skip giving stats to your non-name NPCs because they're "intended to drive player decisions". But you suddenly think this shouldn't apply to named NPCs.

More like, I don't think this should apply to icons of the galaxy. I think WOTC made a mistake providing them, because the limits of the system didn't allow for an accurate flavour. I give WEG a pass because they had so much less to work with, and part of was required for marketing.

Anyway, for me there is no point to having the stats, not for the games I run. But if you want them, what's stopping you?

I was thinking about this too. I've not played the game enough to figure out what would be 'realistic' for how the characters were in the movies. Until you get to Darth and Obi'wan none of the characters are 'super' heroes. I don't think the characters would need maxed out stats and gear to fit into the world.

Some of the characters can be done now since the Edge of the Empire covers characters like Boba Fett, Han Solo, Lando, Chewbacca, and an episode IV Luke.

I was thinking of the stars of Star Wars as player characters since Star Wars games are meant to put the players into the part of the heroes like Luke and Han.

When I was picturing Han and Luke I was trying to decide what specializations they would have. For Han I figured Smuggler base with Scoundrel and Pilot. If we were limiting him to player character rules he would have to save one specialization for one of the Commander specialization when he joins the Rebels.

Thanks for the update. I was still thinking there was a limit on number of specializations.

When I was picturing Han and Luke I was trying to decide what specializations they would have. For Han I figured Smuggler base with Scoundrel and Pilot. If we were limiting him to player character rules he would have to save one specialization for one of the Commander specialization when he joins the Rebels.

Save? I thought the 3 spec limit was dropped during Beta. You can buy as many as you like now.